Description of problem: tftp crashes Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): tftp-0.39-1 How reproducible: Every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. Start tftp with no host name 2. Enter a host name 3. When looking at the tftp> prompt press ^C Actual results: $ tftp (to) localhost tftp> *** glibc detected *** double free or corruption (fasttop): 0x08b8b9c0 *** Aborted Expected results: Same as if tftp is started with a host name on the command line (I assume abort the current operation) Additional info:
At first I though the problem was only if you did not specify a host name, but now I think it only crashes if you press ^C after you have entered a line of input. $ tftp localhost tftp> help tftp-hpa 0.39 Commands may be abbreviated. Commands are: connect connect to remote tftp mode set file transfer mode put send file get receive file quit exit tftp verbose toggle verbose mode trace toggle packet tracing status show current status binary set mode to octet ascii set mode to netascii rexmt set per-packet transmission timeout timeout set total retransmission timeout ? print help information help print help information tftp> *** glibc detected *** double free or corruption (fasttop): 0x0873be20 *** Aborted
Created attachment 126466 [details] tftp-hpa-0.42-sigjmp.patch Fixed in rawhide. Adding on proposed list for RHEL
*** Bug 191029 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> *** Bug 191029 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** But this not yet fixed in FC5...
But it's fixed in FC6 .. and I don't think it's worse an update in FC5.
Is the recommendation to re-base to the version we have in FC6 or to backport? If the plan is to re-base: are there any changes in configuration or expected behaviour?
The recommendation is backport - there is no new version on upstream.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2006-0659.html
Note that the patch checked in is bogus. I have developed a proper fix and will include in in 0.43, which I'm planning to release shortly (I'm waiting for a few more patches.) Now would also be a good time to throw me (a.k.a. upstream) any other patches that you think should be included.