Bug 206579

Summary: restorecon segfaults when passed non-existent file
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Bill Nottingham <notting>
Component: policycoreutilsAssignee: Daniel Walsh <dwalsh>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Ben Levenson <benl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: dwalsh, rvokal, valdis.kletnieks
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Current Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-01-21 15:51:57 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:

Description Bill Nottingham 2006-09-15 04:20:04 UTC 
Description of problem:

# restorecon /sgdsfsuwyrqrw
Segmentation fault

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

policycoreutils-1.30.29-1
Comment 1 Daniel Walsh 2006-09-18 19:36:19 UTC 
Fixed in policycoreutils-1.30.29-2

I have no idea what caused it but a rebuild of the package seems to have cleared
it up.
Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2006-09-18 20:58:23 UTC 
*** Bug 207034 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Valdis Kletnieks 2006-09-19 17:38:18 UTC 
Looking at the backtrace:

(gdb) run /etc/blkid.tab
Starting program: /sbin/restorecon /etc/blkid.tab

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0xb7efb7ab in __fprintf_chk () from /lib/libc.so.6
(gdb) where
#0  0xb7efb7ab in __fprintf_chk () from /lib/libc.so.6
#1  0x080490c4 in restore (filename=<value optimized out>) at restorecon.c:168
#2  0x080495ae in process (buf=0xbfdb27b4 "/etc/blkid.tab") at restorecon.c:347
#3  0x080499fa in main (argc=2, argv=Cannot access memory at address 0xffffffbc
) at restorecon.c:442
#4  0xb7e30f2c in __libc_start_main () from /lib/libc.so.6
#5  0x08048c51 in _start ()

That "value optimized out" is suspicious - quite possibly dependent on the exact
compiler release and flags.  Was the -2 package built against the same compiler
as -1? (I see a gcc update landed in rawhide in the last 48 hours or so....)