From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 29 05:30:02 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4FE851 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:30:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD58ECB4 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:30:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r2T5U2uw063624 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:30:02 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r2T5U2LR063623; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:30:02 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:30:02 GMT Message-Id: <201303290530.r2T5U2LR063623@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Darren Pilgrim Subject: Re: ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint checking X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Darren Pilgrim List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:30:02 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/177416; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Darren Pilgrim To: Paul Beard Cc: "bug-followup@FreeBSD.org" Subject: Re: ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint checking Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:20:55 -0700 On 2013-03-28 21:43, Paul Beard wrote: > I have rebuilt/reinstalled the lot since then and get the same > result. So that's not it. Unless the implication is that a new system > could exhibit this behavior. There are steps between what's been done so far and a brand new system. A complete refetch and reinstall of everything perl is one such step. > As noted, there are other instances of this reported though they are > vanishingly rare. So there may be something in the almost 20 year old > code (some of the modules have comment/copyright dates from the mid > 90s) that only shows up under rare confluences of events. That's more or less my point, yes. You have about 5 times as many p5 ports as I've ever seen on one system. > And to be clear, it's not the taint check alone: it's the fact that > the daemonize option no longer works. There's no runtime argument or > config option for that. It just doesn't work at all. So running it as > a service fails. The thing is I can't reproduce this behaviour. I even ran it on a RELENG_6 system and it worked fine there. > I don't think this is a bug in postgrey which is why I worded the > subject as I did. I think the misfeature is in the modules or perhaps > in some unique aspect of my kernel/userland. But it's a PR for the mail/postgrey port. It sounds like it's reasonable to close this PR.