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

A possible regression in busybox-static version 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u2



Hi,

Is it the right place to report a possible regression bug against
busybox-static version 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u2 ?


1) It seems it can't gunzip large files.

$ dpkg -l busybox-static
...
ii  busybox-static             1:1.22.0-9+deb8u2  amd64              Standalone rescue shell with tons of builtin utilities

$ dd if=/dev/zero of=test0-2292 bs=1 count=2292
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=test0-2293 bs=1 count=2293
$ gzip test0-2292 test0-2293
$ busybox gunzip - < test0-2292.gz | wc
      0       0    2292
$ busybox gunzip - < test0-2293.gz | wc
      0       0       0

and I get the same (anomalous) result with files bigger than 2293 bytes.

2) It doesn't extract symlinks from a cpio archive if the target
path contains (at least) one slash (ie absolute symlinks and
relative symlinks towards another directory are not extracted).

$ zcat rootfs.cgz | cpio -itv lib64 lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
drwxr-xr-x   2 root     root            0 Jul 26 21:57 lib64
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root     root           32 Jul 26 21:57 lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.19.so
1 block

$  zcat rootfs.cgz | busybox cpio -i lib64 lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
1 blocks
$ ls -ARlF lib64
lib64:
total 0

There were no such problems with version 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1 :

$ sudo dpkg -i busybox-static_1%3a1.22.0-9+deb8u1_amd64.deb
$ dpkg -l busybox-static
...
ii  busybox-static             1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1  amd64              Standalone rescue shell with tons of builtin utilities
$ busybox gunzip - < test0-2292.gz | wc
      0       0    2292
$ busybox gunzip - < test0-2293.gz | wc
      0       0    2293

$ zcat rootfs.cgz | busybox cpio -i lib64 lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
1 blocks
$ ls -ARlF lib64
lib64:
total 0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 me me 32 juil. 30 21:32 ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.19.so*

which are the expected results.

This bug affects the usage of debirf on jessie. 

I hope this will help to find a solution.

Regards,
JH Chatenet


Reply to: