Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-02-21 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 22/01/2020 07:29, Brian May wrote: > Brian May writes: > >> commit 7cba800a84730c9c5843acdd775e42b8c1438edf (HEAD) >> Author: Alexander Larsson >> Date: Mon Jun 1 10:02:47 2015 +0200 > > This patch decreases the number of errors from 1 to 52. Thanks for the investigation Brian. However

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-23 Thread Brian May
Brian May writes: > Here is a better stack trace (previous version was picking up system > version of glib): Here is an even better version of the even better version of the stack trace that is actually useful (disabled compile time optimisation) (gdb) bt #0 0x772cbd08 in _g_log_abort

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-21 Thread Brian May
Here is a better stack trace (previous version was picking up system version of glib): (jessie-amd64-default)brian@silverfish:~/debian/lts/packages/glib2.0/glib$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD/gio/.libs:$PWD/glib/.libs gdb gio/tests/.libs/network-monitor GNU gdb (Debian 7.7.1+dfsg-5) 7.7.1

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-21 Thread Brian May
Brian May writes: > commit 7cba800a84730c9c5843acdd775e42b8c1438edf (HEAD) > Author: Alexander Larsson > Date: Mon Jun 1 10:02:47 2015 +0200 This patch decreases the number of errors from 1 to 52. (jessie-amd64-default)brian@silverfish:~/debian/lts/packages/glib2.0/glib$

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-20 Thread Brian May
Brian May writes: > With the 2nd patch, hangs, I pushed Ctrl-C to abort: > > (jessie-amd64-sbuild)brian@silverfish:/$ > /build/glib2.0-sBwZ3c/glib2.0-2.42.1/debian/build/deb/gio/tests/.libs/lt-network-monitor > -k --tap > # random seed: R02Sfd80eb1bd64b09d0b63ad8bcdfd117d2 > # Start of

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-08 Thread Brian May
Without the patch: (jessie-amd64-sbuild)brian@silverfish:/build/glib2.0-0E5btb/glib2.0-2.42.1$ /build/glib2.0-0E5btb/glib2.0-2.42.1/debian/build/deb/gio/tests/.libs/lt-network-monitor -k --tap # random seed: R02Sd9f3f21d68a58e8c21843edb3e297722 # Start of network-monitor tests ok 1

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-07 Thread Brian May
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes: > Yes, that's the failing test I mentioned in my email. Building without the > patches works for me. I am still looking at whether upgrading ibus is worth it > due to the regression risk. It looks like the 2nd patch that is doing this. Just the 1st patch is fine.

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-07 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 07/01/2020 07:36, Brian May wrote: > Brian May writes: > >> My build is still running the tests, but I don't expect any problems as >> the test was getting skipped anyway... > > Tests seem to be hanging, on the next test after: > > PASS: network-address 37 /gresolver/resolve-address/0 >

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-06 Thread Brian May
Brian May writes: > My build is still running the tests, but I don't expect any problems as > the test was getting skipped anyway... Tests seem to be hanging, on the next test after: PASS: network-address 37 /gresolver/resolve-address/0 PASS: network-address 38 /gresolver/resolve-address/1

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-05 Thread Brian May
Brian May writes: > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes: > >> I have been looking at this, but building glib with only the two fix commits >> (not the tests one) makes the build hang on the network-monitor tests. I >> haven't >> investigated much yet, but I wonder if it may be an issue with my local

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2020-01-05 Thread Brian May
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes: > I have been looking at this, but building glib with only the two fix commits > (not the tests one) makes the build hang on the network-monitor tests. I > haven't > investigated much yet, but I wonder if it may be an issue with my local > configuration. Did you

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2019-12-19 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 13/12/2019 05:41, Brian May wrote: > Brian May writes: > >> Apparently the fix for ibus creates a regression in glibc that must get >> fixed also: >> >> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/merge_requests/1176 >> >> However this patch patches GIO in glibc, and it looks like glibc in >> Jessie

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2019-12-12 Thread Brian May
Brian May writes: > Apparently the fix for ibus creates a regression in glibc that must get > fixed also: > > https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/merge_requests/1176 > > However this patch patches GIO in glibc, and it looks like glibc in > Jessie (2.19-18+deb8u10) doesn't have this directory. Or

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2019-12-10 Thread Brian May
"Adam D. Barratt" writes: > I think you might want s/glibc/glib/g? Odd. I am sure I read (and wrote) glibc everywhere. But now I see glib, which actually makes more sense. Did somebody just change the universe when I wasn't looking? :-) Disregard everything I said in that email, will make sure

Re: ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2019-12-10 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On 2019-12-10 06:47, Brian May wrote: Apparently the fix for ibus creates a regression in glibc that must get fixed also: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/merge_requests/1176 However this patch patches GIO in glibc, and it looks like glibc in Jessie (2.19-18+deb8u10) doesn't have this

ibus/CVE-2019-14822/glibc

2019-12-09 Thread Brian May
Apparently the fix for ibus creates a regression in glibc that must get fixed also: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/merge_requests/1176 However this patch patches GIO in glibc, and it looks like glibc in Jessie (2.19-18+deb8u10) doesn't have this directory. Or anything related to GIO that I