At 4:23 PM -0800 2003/02/05, Terry Lambert wrote:
I would never have thought of looking for zebras, since it worked on
my 5.0 system, with all my test programs.
This has been a very interesting conversation to watch. Can I
assume that there will be some more regression tests set up that wi
Mike Barcroft wrote:
> Looks like kris broke it. Shame on us for not having a WARNS level on
> libc big enough to catch simple regressions like this.
FWIW, the warning doesn't show up unless the optimizer is on, even
with "-Wall". So it's probable that the optimizer is not on by
default, so no r
"Jacques A. Vidrine" wrote:
> > Apparently, there was a bug fixed in 4.7 -> 5.0, where the
> > effective UID was being tested instead of the real UID.
> >
> > This is probably something that someone should MFC.
>
> Really? I just took a quick look at this, but I have to shove off
> for now. In i
Mike Makonnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The original poster was right.
> The following patch should fix it. I'll check it in as soon as my test cycle is
> over.
>
> Cheers.
> --
> Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fingerprint: D228 1A6F C64E 12
Mike Makonnen wrote:
> The original poster was right.
> The following patch should fix it. I'll check it in as soon as my test cycle is
> over.
Holy heck.
Good freaking catch!
I would never have thought of looking for zebras, since it worked on
my 5.0 system, with all my test programs.
I though
The original poster was right.
The following patch should fix it. I'll check it in as soon as my test cycle is
over.
Cheers.
--
Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fingerprint: D228 1A6F C64E 120A A1C9 A3AA DAE1 E2AF DBCC 68B9
Index: lib/libc/stdio/t
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:59:15PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > We need to know how we think it's supposed to work, not how you
> > think it's supposed to work to determine if the error is in the
> > code OR in the fact some old bug was fixed going from 4.7->5.0,
> > and t
Terry Lambert wrote:
> We need to know how we think it's supposed to work, not how you
> think it's supposed to work to determine if the error is in the
> code OR in the fact some old bug was fixed going from 4.7->5.0,
> and the fix is biting you, OR it's a real bug.
For anyone who cares:
Additio
Anoop Ranganath wrote:
> > > I've used the code at the bottom of this message to isolate this
> > > bug. The summary is that when I compile the code as root, and then
> > > make it setuid (chmod u+s a.out) and then try to run it as a user, the
> > > tmpfile() fails. If I run it as root, it works
> > I've used the code at the bottom of this message to isolate this
> > bug. The summary is that when I compile the code as root, and then
> > make it setuid (chmod u+s a.out) and then try to run it as a user, the
> > tmpfile() fails. If I run it as root, it works fine. Conversely, I
> > can gi
Anoop Ranganath wrote:
> The problem reared it's ugly head when maildrop started mishandling
> mesasges. Here is what I've tracked it down to:
>
> I've used the code at the bottom of this message to isolate this
> bug. The summary is that when I compile the code as root, and then
> make it setui
The problem reared it's ugly head when maildrop started mishandling
mesasges. Here is what I've tracked it down to:
I've used the code at the bottom of this message to isolate this
bug. The summary is that when I compile the code as root, and then
make it setuid (chmod u+s a.out) and then try to
12 matches
Mail list logo
