On 2022-01-08 at 00:22 +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote: > Ángel wrote: > > > I think that had you tested the devel branch instead of the last > > release, you could have skipped a lot of testing (but how would you > > have known? it's an easy thing to miss). > > https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?10035 seems to have gone the "easy > > fix", which you discarded to get a more thorough one. > > Well, the hard part was the analysis. After I found the problem, > the fix then wasn't that hard either way. > > > I was impressed as well by your careful analysis. > > > > Chet, I think you should consider if Frank patch isn't better than > > the > > previous one. > > I agree however that it should be published as an official patch. > > 1/512th chance of corruption, and only on certain bash versions is > > unlikely to be noticed easily. Which is doesn't mean this isn't > > really > > important. > > 1/512 may be rare (and thus the more surprising) for many users. In > my case, it was (luckily?) more common since my script processed a > number of UTF-8 strings which increases the chance of hitting it. > Indeed, by varying the environment it was roughly as likely to work > correctly or crash at one of 3 points or so.
Yes, I think it can be considered lucky that you were able to reproduce it with ease. bugs that only happen once in a blue moon are well, hard. > > By the way, your reproducer is not working for me with an unpatched > > 5.1.8: > > Well, as I wrote in my original mail, it may depend on other factors > of my environment, and it would take more work to identify them. > Anyway, the point is moot now; my test works on my system and shows > that the bug is present in 5.1.12 and fixed in 5.1.16. When you mentioned the environment in the previous mail I thought in the environment block (which you reset with env -i). As for the environment in general, yes, apparently there are more things that cause it to be even more random. Best regards
