Re: umask builtin

Am 08.11.2017 um 16:36 schrieb Eduardo Bustamante: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 10:06 AM, kalle wrote: > [...] >>> From umask(1p): >>> For a symbolic_mode value, the new value of the file mode creation mask >>> shall be the logical complement of the file permission bits portion of >>> the fil

Re: umask builtin

> I linked the POSIX standard document in my reply. Here it is > again: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/umask.html > > That is how the standard specifies the behavior of the umask builtin. > If your question > is "why is it shown in that way", then the answer is: "becaus

double free corruption bash 4.2.53(1)-release

Hi all, I found a bug in bash 4.2.48+ (doesn't seem to effect bash 4.3) : 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

Re: double free corruption bash 4.2.53(1)-release

Went ahead and compiled libc and bash with debug symbols. I can't seem to trigger it when I am actually IN an interactive shell (e.g. having a pts allocated to myself), but it still triggers with the shell script. ifrit crash # gdb /bin/bash GNU gdb (Gentoo 7.10.1 vanilla) 7.10.1 Copyright (C) 20

Re: double free corruption bash 4.2.53(1)-release

On 11/9/17 11:19 AM, e...@onlythechosen.com wrote: > Hi all, > > I found a bug in bash 4.2.48+ (doesn't seem to effect bash 4.3) Thanks for the report. A couple things: I no longer support bash-4.2. If this is fixed in bash-4.3, it's been fixed for almost four years in an official release (and lo

Re: double free corruption bash 4.2.53(1)-release

Thanks for at least trying. I haven't found anyone else that has been able to replicate it either, this would be a huge pain to chase down for me. I'm able to replicate it 100% of the time on my system. So if anyone IS interested in trying please contact me and I will give them a shell account t

Re: double free corruption bash 4.2.53(1)-release

On 11/9/17 4:16 PM, e...@onlythechosen.com wrote: > The new version of bash > doesn't seem to let me echo unicode properly, so I would be greatly > interested in figuring out what is wrong. Which new version of bash, exactly? And what kind of problems? -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long

Re: double free corruption bash 4.2.53(1)-release

Oddly enough it seems to have resolved itself after my libc recompile with debug symbols. ifrit ~ # echo $BASH_VERSION 4.3.48(1)-release Before the libc recompile with debug symbols regardless of locale, the printf builtin was just printing "\u200b\n" as "\u200B" The problem seems to have resol