bug#35650: [PATCH] Improving HP-UX support

Hi folks, please find a patch attached to properly compile and link GNU coreutils 8.31 on HP-UX IA64. As of now, it does not compile out of the box. The patch includes these changes: * basenc.c: HP aCC does not allow anonymous unions inside structs, I have named it otherwise the compilation

bug#35654: We've found a vulnerability of gnu chown, please check it and request a cve id for us.

I don't see any vulnerability here. The -h option of 'chown -h A/B/C' does not affect whether A and A/B are followed if they are symbolic links: they are always followed, regardless of whether the -h option is specified. The -h option affects only whether A/B/C is followed if A/B/C is a symbolic

bug#35654: We've found a vulnerability of gnu chown, please check it and request a cve id for us.

I understand what you mean. The manual tell me -h "affect symbolic links instead of any referenced file", now you say A/B/C is not a symbolic link if B is a symbolic. It's confusing, right? Paul Eggert 于2019年5月10日周五 上午4:01写道： > I don't see any vulnerability here. The -h option of 'chown -h

bug#35654: We've found a vulnerability of gnu chown, please check it and request a cve id for us.

Hello! we have found a vulnerability of command chown, please check it.If it is a vulnerability. please request a cve id for use, thank you!chown -h bypass - chown -h bypass - 1. Description

bug#35654: markdown version.

# chown -h bypass [TOC] ## 1. Description In the user manual of command **chown**, the description of the `-h` option is as follows. If we use command `chown` with `-h` option, only symbolic links will be affected rather than any referenced file. > -h, --no-dereference affect symbolic links

bug#35654: please delete 35654

i'm so stupid. the typesetting of 35654 is too bad. i will report it again.

bug#35654: We've found a vulnerability of gnu chown, please check it and request a cve id for us.

On 5/9/19 5:28 PM, st0n3 ss wrote: > ou say A/B/C is not a symbolic link if B is a symbolic. > It's confusing, right? No more confusing than saying A/B/C is not a directory merely because B is a directory.