Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 856092
file detects netpbm files as x86 boot sector type sometimes
Last modified: 2013-03-11 04:35:34 EDT
Created attachment 611684 [details]
Netpbm file - possible reproducer
Description of problem:
Sometimes it happens that file detects netpbm files as "x86 boot sector" type. From test's outputs:
jpegtopnm-back-from-jpeg.ppm: Netpbm PPM "rawbits" image data
lispmtopgm-back-from-lispm.pgm: Netpbm PGM "rawbits" image data
macptopbm-back-from-macp.pbm: Netpbm PBM "rawbits" image data
mdatopbm-back-from-mda.pbm: x86 boot sector
mgrtopbm-back-from-mgr.pbm: Netpbm PBM "rawbits" image data
mrftopbm-back-from-mrf.pbm: Netpbm PBM "rawbits" image data
hdifftopam-back-from-hdiff.pgm: Netpbm PAM image file
hdifftopam-back-from-hdiff.ppm: Netpbm PAM image file
icontopbm-back-from-icon.pbm: x86 boot sector
ilbmtoppm-back-from-ilbm.ppm: Netpbm PPM "rawbits" image data
jbigtopnm-back-from-jbig.pbm: Netpbm PBM "rawbits" image data
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
I was not able to reproduce this manually, it happens very rarely
Steps to Reproduce:
1. file mdatopbm-back-from-mda.pbm
2. or some other .pbm file
x86 boot sector
Netpbm PBM "rawbits" image data
So it happens only sometimes for particular file? If it's broken, it should happen all the time.
File detects files as "x86 boot sector" if they have bytes 0xAA55 at offset 0x1FE. It's possible that those pbm files have these bytes there accidentally, but the file you attached does not have them there.
Yes, it happens only sometimes for different pbm files. I don't have access to that affected files, so it can't be checked, but I can try to run the test few times and see if it happens again and eventually get the affected file.
In another test round appeared this (x86_64 only):
mdatopbm-back-from-mda.pbm: x86 boot sector, code offset 0x34
Could you get exactly that file and attach it here when it happens?
Created attachment 657391 [details]
Finally after a few test rounds I've got the file to reproduce it.
Great, I'm able to reproduce it with this file.
Created attachment 658134 [details]
This won't be fixed in RHEL5, closing it as WONTFIX. There is still clone of this bug for RHEL6, which should be fixed in RHEL6 row.