On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:37 AM Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 11:41 PM Shah, Amul <amul.s...@fisglobal.com> wrote: > > > > All, > > > > I need some guidance. The host where we encountered a bug is sitting in a > > lab environment with no direct Internet access. Below is the output from > > reportbug with the print-only option. > > > > > > > > I am filing a bug against glibc 2.36 due to a bug in memcmp-sse2.S > > Here is what I am reading from the git commit message: > > [...] > In the case of INCORRECT usage of `memcmp(a, b, N)` where `a` and `b` > are concurrently modified as `memcmp` runs, there can be a SIGSEGV > in `L(ret_nonzero_vec_end_0)` because the sequential logic > assumes that `(rdx - 32 + rax)` is a positive 32-bit integer. > [...] > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=b712be52645282c706a5faa038242504feb06db5 > > I am pretty sure the actual root issue is in fis-gtm instead. Could > you check with them directly?
OK, nevermind. I did read the complete exchange on bugzilla, and created: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033931 Just FYI you can report a bug from almost anywhere, simply follow the example from: * https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting > > that causes fis-gtm to segfault possibly leading to data corruption. There > > is already a fix in the upstream (see below). I am unsure of how to > > proceed. I know that I should create the bug report so that the problem > > gets fixed, either by patching or adoption of the version with the fix. > > Should I submit the patch myself? Or should I just wait for the adoption of > > the latest glibc version, 2.37? > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there is anything that I can do to improve the > > quality of my bug report and if I can/should help myself by providing a > > patch. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Amul > > > > > > > > --- content of the reportbug email --- > > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > From: Amul Shah amul.s...@fisglobal.com > > > > To: Debian Bug Tracking System sub...@bugs.debian.org > > > > Subject: libc-bin: Bug in glibc causes SIGSEGV in fis-gtm; see upstream bug > > report BZ #29863 > > > > > > > > Package: libc-bin > > > > Version: 2.36-8 > > > > Severity: grave > > > > Justification: renders package unusable > > > > X-Debbugs-Cc: amul.s...@fisglobal.com > > > > > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > > > > > There is a bug in glibc 2.36 that has been fixed in 2.37. The two links > > below detail the original bug report and the fix. > > > > - Upstream bug report - > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29863 > > > > - Upstream commit fixing said bug report – > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=b712be52645282c706a5faa038242504feb06db5 > > > > > > > > This bug causes fis-gtm to randomly crash on a SIGSEGV. Depending upon > > process activity, the crash could result in database damage. > > > > > > > > -- System Information: > > > > Debian Release: bookworm/sid > > > > APT prefers unstable-debug > > > > APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable') > > > > Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) > > > > > > > > Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT) > > > > Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE > > not set > > > > Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash > > > > Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) > > > > LSM: AppArmor: enabled > > > > > > > > Versions of packages libc-bin depends on: > > > > ii libc6 2.36-8 > > > > > > > > Versions of packages libc-bin recommends: > > > > ii manpages 6.02-1 > > > > > > > > libc-bin suggests no packages. > > > > The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or > > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the > > message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message > > in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please > > be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving > > and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
