Bug 174139

Summary: Faulty magic database entry triggers erroneously
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: JW <ohtmvyyn>
Component: fileAssignee: Radek Vokál <rvokal>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Mike McLean <mikem>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 4   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-11-29 06:57:59 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch to fix fault in magic file none

Description JW 2005-11-25 00:53:44 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows; U; AIIEEEE!; Win98; Windows 98; en-US; Gecko masquerading as IE; should it matter?; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050217

Description of problem:
There is a faulty entry in /usr/share/file/magic in "cracklib" section which triggers on just about every binary file.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
file-4.15-fc4.1

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1./usr/bin/file /var/lib/rpm/Basenames
2.
3.
  

Actual Results:  Basenames: (1628767744 words)

Expected Results:  Basenames: data


Additional info:

The expected result wont happen until the other bug (#174137) is fixed.
But the test file is not a cracklib password index!
And lots of other binary files produce the same result.
It is caused be a simple bug in new cracklib entry in magic file.
See patch for a fix.
Comment 1 JW 2005-11-25 01:00:20 UTC 
Created attachment 121470 [details]
Patch to fix fault in magic file

To apply:
     cd /usr/share/file
     patch -p0 <magic.patch
     rm magic.mgc
     file -C
Comment 2 Fedora Update System 2005-11-28 18:29:58 UTC 
From User-Agent: XML-RPC

file-4.16-fc4.1 has been pushed for FC4, which should resolve this issue.  If these problems are still present in this version, then please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 3 JW 2005-11-29 01:53:27 UTC 
(In reply to comment #2)
> From User-Agent: XML-RPC
> 
> file-4.16-fc4.1 has been pushed for FC4, which should resolve this issue.  If
these problems are still present in this version, then please make note of it in
this bug report.

No, the issue is not resolved!
Why do you close bugs when you haven't even tested them?

I have gone to the trouble of even supplying a patch to fix the problem, yet you
ignore the patch, close the bug, don't even test it ... what exactly are you
trying to achieve?
Comment 4 Radek Vokál 2005-11-29 06:57:59 UTC 
Slow down please, here's my output

root@gigolo ~# rpm -q file
file-4.16-fc4.1
root@gigolo ~# file /var/lib/rpm/Basenames
/var/lib/rpm/Basenames: Berkeley DB (Hash, version 8, native byte-order)

Do you consider it wrong? I don't.
Comment 5 JW 2005-11-29 08:12:09 UTC 
> Do you consider it wrong? I don't.

Please see my comments for bug #174137 (they are both the result of the same error).

And to answer your question truthfully, yes, it is wrong. And, yes, I know that
you don't consider it to be.




*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 174137 ***