Bug#814544: wheezy-pu: package clamav/0.99+dfsg-0+deb7u1
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 00:21:15 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-02-19 05:56:27 [+0000], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > The sparc build has now failed three times, across two different builds.
>
> And why did mips pass? Isn't mips the difficult one?
>
Not sure what you mean here.
> The patch attached is a simplified version of what I had on smetana
> during testing. I would give it another try to make sure it works before
> the final upload.
> Speaking of which: does this count as a wheezy-pu bug for
> clamav/0.99+dfsg-0+deb7u2?
> Do you want to see this change in unstable before it hits wheezy?
>
> I have a tiny testcase which fails on my armel box but succeeds on the
> armel porterbox. I guess the HW on the porterbox is new enough to work
> with this (mine is ARMv5 and the porterbox is ARMv7 which is enough for
> armhf). My testcase does not fail on the mips/mipsel porter boxes.
>
> diff --git a/libclamav/yara_exec.c b/libclamav/yara_exec.c
> index dbd7ae8..eb06fbb 100644
> --- a/libclamav/yara_exec.c
> +++ b/libclamav/yara_exec.c
[...]
> @@ -184,7 +194,7 @@ int yr_execute_code(
> #endif
>
> case OP_PUSH:
> - r1 = *(uint64_t*)(ip + 1);
> + r1 = get_unaligned_64(ip + 1);
> ip += sizeof(uint64_t);
> push(r1);
> break;
Wouldn't "memcpy(&r1, ip + 1, sizeof(uint64_t))" be simpler? Either
way, yes, it'd be good to have it fixed in sid first.
Thanks,
Julien
Reply to: