Bug#352868: marked as done (glibc 2.3.6 fixes serious dlclose bug)
Your message dated Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:31:17 +0100
with message-id <43F65CC5.8090307@aurel32.net>
and subject line Bug#352868: glibc 2.3.6 fixes serious dlclose bug
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.5-13
There is a serious bug in glibc's dlclose that casues a segfault when a
library being dlclosed calls dlclose from an _fini function (i.e. a c++
destructor for a static or global object). This has been fixed by the
glibc maintainers in 2.3.6; the original patch is here:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2005-04/msg00014.html
The libc6 package should either move to 2.3.6 upstream sources or backport
this fix.
Alexey
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi !
Alexey Toptygin a écrit :
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.5-13
There is a serious bug in glibc's dlclose that casues a segfault when a
library being dlclosed calls dlclose from an _fini function (i.e. a c++
destructor for a static or global object). This has been fixed by the
glibc maintainers in 2.3.6; the original patch is here:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2005-04/msg00014.html
The libc6 package should either move to 2.3.6 upstream sources or
backport this fix.
I confirm that this fix is present in our 2.3.6 version, so I am closing
the bug.
Aurelien
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
--- End Message ---
Reply to: