[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#503582: marked as done (regression: busybox nc -v www.google.com 80 segfaults)

Your message dated Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:53:25 +0300
with message-id <4CFE90B5.2090401@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
and subject line Re: Bug#503582: regression: busybox nc -v www.google.com 80 segfaults
has caused the Debian Bug report #503582,
regarding regression: busybox nc -v www.google.com 80 segfaults
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
503582: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=503582
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: busybox
Version: 1:1.10.2-2
Severity: normal

Steps to reproduce:
1) busybox nc -v www.google.com 80

Expected results:
1) busybox tells the user that option "-v" is not known.

Actual results:
1) busybox segfaults.

More info:
1) gdb is not too useful since the package does not support building
with debugging symbols:

$ gdb --args busybox nc -v www.google.com 80
GNU gdb 6.8-debian
Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "i486-linux-gnu"...
(no debugging symbols found)
(gdb) r
Starting program: /bin/busybox nc -v www.google.com 80
(no debugging symbols found)
Failed to read a valid object file image from memory.
(no debugging symbols found)
(no debugging symbols found)

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0808f8f0 in ?? ()
(gdb) bt
#0  0x0808f8f0 in ?? ()
#1  0xb7d829cc in ?? () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2  0xb7f0663e in ?? () from /lib/ld-linux.so.2
#3  0xb7eae000 in ?? ()
#4  0x00000004 in ?? ()
#5  0x00000020 in ?? ()
#6  0x00000000 in ?? ()
(gdb) x/5i $eip
0x808f8f0 <geteuid@plt+274004>: incl   (%eax)
0x808f8f2 <geteuid@plt+274006>: mov    0x1(%ebx),%al
0x808f8f5 <geteuid@plt+274009>: cmp    $0x1,%al
0x808f8f7 <geteuid@plt+274011>: jne    0x808f90f <geteuid@plt+274035>
0x808f8f9 <geteuid@plt+274013>: mov    0x80a48a8,%eax
(gdb) info register
eax            0x1      1
ecx            0x0      0
edx            0xffffffff       -1
ebx            0xbfaeac48       -1079071672
esp            0xbfaeab7c       0xbfaeab7c
ebp            0xbfaeaf64       0xbfaeaf64
esi            0x0      0
edi            0x0      0
eip            0x808f8f0        0x808f8f0 <geteuid@plt+274004>
eflags         0x10202  [ IF RF ]
cs             0x73     115
ss             0x7b     123
ds             0x7b     123
es             0x7b     123
fs             0x0      0
gs             0x33     51
(gdb)

2) This is a regression since 1.1.3-4 does not segfault:

$ busybox nc -v www.google.com 80
nc: invalid option -- v
BusyBox v1.1.3 (Debian 1:1.1.3-4) multi-call binary

Usage: nc [OPTIONS] [IP] [port]

Netcat opens a pipe to IP:port

Options:
        -l              listen mode, for inbound connects
        -p PORT         local port number
        -i SECS         delay interval for lines sent
        -w SECS         timeout for connects and final net reads

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 1:1.17.1-8

26.10.2008 22:24, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> Package: busybox
> Version: 1:1.10.2-2
> Severity: normal
> 
> Steps to reproduce:
> 1) busybox nc -v www.google.com 80
> 
> Expected results:
> 1) busybox tells the user that option "-v" is not known.
> 
> Actual results:
> 1) busybox segfaults.

This bug is now fixed in current version of busybox in
squeeze, so closing it.

Thanks!

/mjt

--- End Message ---
Reply to: