Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:32:10 +0200
From:      Wolfram Fenske <Wolfram.Fenske@Student.Uni-Magdeburg.DE>
To:        pav@FreeBSD.org
Cc:        ports@FreeBSD.org, chuck@pkix.net, Andy Polyakov <appro@fy.chalmers.se>
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD Port: dvd+rw-tools-7.0: growisofs -version dumps core
Message-ID:  <86sl63uqnp.fsf@hondo.cadr.de>
In-Reply-To: <1188300465.4687.10.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> (Pav Lucistnik's message of "Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:27:45 %2B0200")
References:  <86veb0jjm8.fsf@hondo.cadr.de> <1188300465.4687.10.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> writes:

> Wolfram Fenske p=ED=B9e v =FAt 28. 08. 2007 v 07:47 +0200:
>
>> On my system [1],
>>=20
>>   growisofs -version
>>=20
>> causes a core dump in mkisofs (8).  The exact output is:
>>=20
>>   * growisofs by <appro@fy.chalmers.se>, version 7.0.1,
>>     front-ending to mkisofs: Bus error(coredump)
>>=20
>> (It says growisofs version 7.0.1, not 7.0, because I also use another
>> patch [2].  The problem occurs with or without this patch, though.)
>>=20
>> I don't usually call growisofs like that myself, but k3b, for example,
>> does.
>
> Must be something with your system, works for me:

Ah, you're right.  I compiled the dvd+rw-tools myself, and the default
`gmake install' installs the programs with the setuid bit set.  I saw
what I thought was a reference to my bug on the freebsd-ports-bugs
list [1], so I thought this problem occurred in the ports collection
as well.

It turns out the FreeBSD port installs the dvd+rw-tools with mode 555
and the problem doesn't reveal itself in this configuration.  However,
if you do set the setuid bit on the programs built from the ports
collection [2], you get the behavior I described.  My little patch
fixes that.


Footnotes:=20
[1]  <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/2007-March/1158=
64.html>

[2]  I don't know, is there a particular reason why the dvd+rw-tools
     should or shouldn't be installed that way?

--=20
Wolfram Fenske

A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86sl63uqnp.fsf>