Jason Vas Dias <jason.vas.d...@gmail.com> added the comment:

RE: msg134737 :
 > indeed this test bug was only recently (April 4th!) fixed.  
Please can you let me know how to get the patch / source / that fixes this ? 
The bug # of the original bug ? Should I be building from GIT ? Which GIT tag ? 
I'll try that next ...
 
> And the issue is indeed selinux; the fix was to the regex to take 
> into account the selinux extra attributes.  

selinux is disabled on my system, there were no SELinux attributes
in the string emitted by 'ls -dl' - and the python executable does
not link to libselinux - so you're saying that, in this code :
        pat = r'''d.........   # It is a directory.
                  \+?          # It may have ACLs.
'\+?' is incorrectly requiring '+' ?
Surely this is a bug in the regexp code ?

Nope, I don't think it has anything to do with SELinux attributes -
when I remove the '\+?', the RE still fails :


$ cat test.py

import os
import sys
import re

pat = r'''d.........   # It is a directory.
          \s+\d+       # It has some number of links.
          [^/]*        # Skip user, group, size, and date.
          /\.          # and end with the name of the file.
       '''
str = 'drwxr-xr-x. 25 root root 4096 Apr 20 15:28 /.'
if re.match(pat, str, re.VERBOSE) :
   print "MATCHED\n"
else :
   print "DID NOT MATCH"

$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` LD_PRELINK=`pwd`/libpython2.7.so.1.0 ./python ./test.py
DID NOT MATCH

RE:
>  As for the other issue, please open a new ticket.  (The pseudo-code, 
>  by the way, is saying that all three sizes must be the same.)

This really frightens me - do you really believe that 
   "all three sizes must be the same" on an x86_64 ? :
test_dl
test test_dl crashed -- <type 'exceptions.SystemError'>: module dl requires 
sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) == sizeof(char*)

That your dynamic linking module should give the impression in its
test script that it thinks 'sizeof(int)' (==4) should be equal to
'sizeof(char*)' (==8) is rather disconcerting to say the least -
and terrifying if it actually acts on this fundamental misconception
in its code - the fact that it crashed suggests maybe this is the
case. I'll see what happens with this test for the new code build
and raise another issue if not fixed.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue11946>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to