Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id:	<3.0.5.32.20031103211959.00829450@incoming.verizon.net>
X-Sender:	vze1u1tg AT incoming DOT verizon DOT net
Date:	Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:19:59 -0500
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org>
Subject:	Re: Segmentation Fault of ssh3.7.1 with cygwin1.5.5-1 in W95
In-Reply-To:	<20031103190632.GL18706@cygbert.vinschen.de>
References:	<20031103183956 DOT GA223527 AT Worldnet>
	<3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20031031190541 DOT 00826670 AT incoming DOT verizon DOT net>
	<3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20031030202558 DOT 00828400 AT incoming DOT verizon DOT net>
	<3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20031029214604 DOT 0082b8c0 AT incoming DOT verizon DOT net>
	<200310291905 DOT h9TJ5eG5028353 AT pion DOT ivic DOT ve>
	<3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20031029214604 DOT 0082b8c0 AT incoming DOT verizon DOT net>
	<3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20031030202558 DOT 00828400 AT incoming DOT verizon DOT net>
	<3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20031031190541 DOT 00826670 AT incoming DOT verizon DOT net>
	<3 DOT 0 DOT 5 DOT 32 DOT 20031102094314 DOT 00839710 AT incoming DOT verizon DOT net>
	<20031103163115 DOT GH18706 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
	<20031103183956 DOT GA223527 AT Worldnet>
Mime-Version:	1.0

At 08:06 PM 11/3/2003 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:39:56PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:31:15PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >
>> > I see.  I'll create a patch.
>>  
>> I started one already, must still compile and test.
>> Let me know if you proceed on your side.
>
>I have a patch ready and it seems to work fine(tm).  Would you mind
>to give it a try on 95?  Patch below.

Turns out your patch is identical to mine (there is no need to 
initialize protolen), and it worked on Win95, but a few things 
trouble me in the reused code:

1) The test "IsBadReadPtr (src->s_proto ..." will unduly fail on Win95
   if the 16 lsb of the first alias address are the 16 msb of a readable
   memory address. I don't see why that's impossible. If would safer 
   to have a wincap entry, or (horror !), testing wincap.osname ().
2) The test "&& !IsBadReadPtr (((pservent *) src) " should never fail
   when it is reached, but should it fail, s_proto would be assigned an
   invalid address and the program would crash. So if that test is kept
   it should be part of a if .. else if ..  (leaving s_proto NULL).
3) Strictly speaking, we should use IsBadStringPtr..

Pierre


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -