GNU bug report logs - #56766
[PATCH] gnu: exiv2: Fix test failure on ppc64-le

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: Marcel van der Boom <marcel <at> van-der-boom.nl>, 56766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#56766] [PATCH] gnu: exiv2: Fix test failure on ppc64-le
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 21:11:16 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

>> 1. Inform upstream that the test (or the code it tests) is broken on
>>    ppc64le, such that a better test can be devised and everyone    (not
>>    only Guix) benefits,
>
> This has been done. Their reply, in short: ppc64 is not on their 
> supported platforms list and they delegate the fix to others. 
OK, in that case ...

On 25-07-2022 21:47, Marcel van der Boom wrote:
> +--- /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
> ++++ /tests/bugfixes/github/test_CVE_2018_12265.py
> +@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
> + Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 0 is outside of the data area; ignored.
> + Warning: Directory Image, entry 0x0201: Strip 7 is outside of the data area; ignored.
> + Error: Offset of directory Thumbnail, entry 0x0201 is out of bounds: Offset = 0x00000000; truncating the entry
> +-$uncaught_exception $addition_overflow_message
> + """
> +     ]
> +-    retval = [1]
> ++    retval = [0]

... this is your proposed fix for powerpc64le, but how do we know 
whether it is correct? Is this just rewriting the test until it passes, 
hiding the underlying overflow bug which even had an CVE so probably 
pretty important to not hide it and actually fix it, or do we know for a 
fact that on ppc64le, a retval = [0] is correct?

Maybe this is answered by:

> ppc64 and arm do not raise exception and thus output and exit code for test is different.
but I don't know if that's working around symptoms or addressing the 
cause, e.g. 
https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues/933#issuecomment-863333032 noticed 
something on offsets -- summarised, this is not a sufficiently 
convincing explanation for me.

Also, somehow this version of the package builds on Debian sid, so maybe 
Debian knows more, though I'm not finding anything relevant in the 
Debian package myself.

Greetings,
Maxime.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

[OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]

[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.