From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 10 21:07:39 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from lo0.su (repoman.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::29])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E18B106566C;
	Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:07:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ru@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:11:53 +0000
From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>
To: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20110810211153.GA16245@lo0.su>
References: <86obzxw2ys.fsf@gmail.com>
	<CAPFoGT_EVNL5On9UYWwd+vx5z4=8YYg+Jjto6q2A9t89vrNqfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110810200232.GA38421@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110810200232.GA38421@freebsd.org>
Cc: Test Rat <ttsestt@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org,
	Navdeep Parhar <nparhar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: awk(1) segfaults when building kernel modules
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:07:39 -0000

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:02:32PM +0000, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Aug 10 11, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Test Rat <ttsestt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > `make -s buildkernel' seems to contain lots of segfaults after recent
> > > update of one-true-awk in r224731. It chokes on sys/conf/kmod_syms.awk.
> 
> just out of curiosity: what's the point of doing a vendor import during a
> beta phase? isn't this exactly the kind of stuff you DON'T want to do, because
> it can only turn out badly?

The previous version had a bug in handling the -v option
since the last import.  I sent a patch to bwk@ months ago,
but he only released the new version that included a fix
on August 7.

Unfortunately, while fixing another bug ("fixed day 1 bug
that resurrected deleted elements of ARGV when used as
filenames (in lib.c)."), not all code was fixed, and a NULL
pointer deference bug is triggered by the following code
snippet:

	awk 'BEGIN{delete ARGV[1]}{}' arg

%%%
Index: head/contrib/one-true-awk/lib.c
===================================================================
--- head/contrib/one-true-awk/lib.c	(revision 224760)
+++ head/contrib/one-true-awk/lib.c	(working copy)
@@ -89,8 +89,13 @@
 	char *p;
 
 	for (i = 1; i < *ARGC; i++) {
-		if (!isclvar(p = getargv(i))) {	/* find 1st real filename */
-			setsval(lookup("FILENAME", symtab), getargv(i));
+		p = getargv(i);	/* find 1st real filename */
+		if (p == NULL || *p == '\0') {	/* deleted or zapped */
+			argno++;
+			continue;
+		}
+		if (!isclvar(p)) {
+			setsval(lookup("FILENAME", symtab), p);
 			return;
 		}
 		setclvar(p);	/* a commandline assignment before filename */
%%%

> imho r224731 should completely be reverted. aren't those exactly the kind of
> commits re@ shouldn't approve?


-- 
Ruslan Ermilov
ru@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer