Re: [mlmmj] Pointer-flakiness

Le 12 février 2023 08:34:22 GMT+01:00, "Carlo E. Prelz" <[email protected]> a écrit :
>Dear all,
>
>I have been subscribed to this list for many years even if I had
>stopped using the software. The traffic is small enough that I did not
>feel like canceling the subscription.
>
>I recently had the need to set up a small mailing list for
>family-related business, so I went to get file
>mlmmj-RELEASE_1_4_0_a2.tar.gz, expecting I'd be quickly up and running
>with my new list.
>
>The result was one sunday morning spent in debugging mode, hunting
>segmentation faults. I eventually corrected two bugs:
>
>1) In file utils.c, function strtoim, line 46, you have
>
>*errpp = NULL;
>
>but the function parameter **errpp can be passed as null - this
>happens in mlmmj-send.c. In that case, you have a segfault. I modified
>the line to
>
>if(errpp)
>  *errpp=NULL;
>
>but I cannot say whether this is the correct fix.
>
>2) In file mlmmj-maintd.c, in function resend_queue, line 152, you
>have
>
>char *mailname, *fromname, *toname, *reptoname, *from, *to, *repto;
>
>I have found that at least one of the above variables (I cannot
>remember which one - this happened a couple of weekends ago) had to be
>initialized, otherwise I'd have another segfault. I changed the line
>to
>
>char *mailname=NULL,*fromname=NULL,*toname=NULL,*reptoname=NULL,*from=NULL,*to=NULL,*repto=NULL;
>
>just to make sure. Sadly, even after that, I could not manage to have
>my simple list running - another segfault popped up.
>
>I was about to run out of time, so I decided to go back to the old
>source I had (1.2.15, from 2012), freshly compiled it and quickly had
>my list up and running.
>
>This message is intended as a good old-fashioned bug-report, but also
>as a warning light about some sort of pointer-flakiness that seems to
>have percolated into the source code. Sadly, I suffer from terminal
>time scarcity, so I am not able to do further debugging. But I am
>surprised at how the code in the current state is able to run at
>all. Trying to write something to address 0 should always have the
>effect of killing any healthy process...
>
>Best
>
>Carlo


Thank you for the bug report, I will look into it on monday (good old fashion bug reports are ok with me.)

Bapt