From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20632 invoked by alias); 6 May 2005 08:19:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-regex-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-regex-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20434 invoked by alias); 6 May 2005 08:19:20 -0000 Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 08:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050506081920.20433.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch" To: glibc-bugs-regex@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20050506060600.934.zachmann@schlund.de> References: <20050506060600.934.zachmann@schlund.de> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug regex/934] segfault in regexec X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2005-05-06 08:19 ------- Subject: Re: segfault in regexec >So there should be no internal states in regex_t or I'm wrong here? > > Hm, re_acquire_state and other functions that *create* these states should be guarded. >>Probably, trying with a long running regex would make the crash almost >>100% reproducible on both single and multi-processor machines. I'd try >>with ^(.)?(.?)(.?)(.?)(.?)\5\4\3\2\1$ for example. >> >> >with this regex it only crashes only in 5 out of 100 runs. > > Oh right, because this one runs longer but not in re_acquire_state_context. Paolo -- http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=934 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.