Contributed by jcs on from the patch-and-make-and-make-install dept.
008: RELIABILITY FIX: January 6, 2005
The getcwd(3) library function contains a memory management error, which causes failure to retrieve the current working directory if the path is very long.
The patch is available from your local FTP mirror.
(Comments are closed)
By almeida (192.160.62.60) on
I just applied 008_getcwd.patch and rebuilt and installed libc. The patch instructions tell me I need to rebuild statically linked binaries before they'll pick up the changes:
Is this the proper way to rebuild csh, for example?
Also, is there a way to determine what other static binaries also use getcwd?
Comments
By jose (204.181.64.2) on http://monkey.org/~jose/
Comments
By Andreas (134.100.120.75) on
To the grand-parent : that's what I did.
Comments
By Otto Moerbeek (82.197.192.49) otto@drijf.net on http://www.drijf.net
Some program do not use getcwd(3) directly, but via another library function like realpath(3).
Comments
By Otto Moerbeek (82.197.192.49) otto@drijf.net on http://www.drijf.net
Comments
By almeida (192.160.62.60) on
By Anonymous Coward (146.186.107.112) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (69.182.25.166) on
# cd /usr/src/bin/csh
# make clean all install
By Brian (205.161.1.46) on
Comments
By tedu (67.124.88.142) on
failure to retrieve the current working directory if the path is very long.
Who should patch?
you
Comments
By Brian (205.161.1.46) on
Yes, I can read read. I didn't know the impact when I read that statement in the advisory and I still dont know it after reading it from you. I doubt many non-developers would know either.
I usually don't apply non-security fixes unless I know that they affect me, especially ones that require me to recompile much of /sbin and /bin.
Comments
By Otto Moerbeek (82.197.192.49) otto@drijf.net on http://www.drijf.net
Erratas are derived from the -stable branches. We have strict rules for introducing fixes into these branches. We are extra careful not to break other things while fixing a problem. So your hesitance to apply patches is not really appropriate.
It is so much easier to say: this machine has all erratas applied, compared to: this machine has errata x, y and z applied, but now its usage pattern has changed and I forgat about checking if the set of relevant patches is still the same.
Comments
By Brian (205.161.1.46) on
Most of the one or two line advisories either state who would be affected by the bug or include enough information for a non-developer (well, me) to know how they're affected. I don't know from this one, so I asked. I think it was a very relevant question, but apparently it appeared to be a troll.
Comments
By Otto Moerbeek (213.84.84.111) otto@drijf.net on http://www.drijf.net
The patch concerns a library function. A lot of programs use this library function. Furthermore, the errata does not specify a specific group of users. Conclusion: you should assume you are affected.
By tedu (64.173.147.27) on
By Shabani (65.94.172.111) on
Comments
By Brad (65.110.162.62) brad at comstyle dot com on