Op 27-9-2018 om 11:42 schreef James:
On 25/09/2018 22:39, Stephan Bosch wrote:
Something mightily weird is going on at your end. It doesn't fail here
(see below). First of all, what is your configuration (output from
`dovecot -n`)?
You have dovecot.conf but...
$ dovecot -c dovecot.conf -n
# 2.3.3.rc1 (14e4920d8): dovecot.conf
# Pigeonhole version 0.5.2 (7704de5e)
# OS: SunOS 5.11 i86pc
# Hostname: mailhost
doveconf: Warning: please set ssl_dh=</etc/opt/xxx/dovecot/dh.pem
doveconf: Warning: You can generate it with: dd
if=/var/opt/xxx/lib/dovecot/ssl-parameters.dat bs=1 skip=88 | openssl
dhparam -inform der > /etc/opt/xxx/dovecot/dh.pem
mail_debug = yes
mail_gid = staff
mail_location = maildir:/path/to/%d/%n/Maildir
mail_uid = james
managesieve_notify_capability = mailto
managesieve_sieve_capability = fileinto reject envelope
encoded-character vacation subaddress comparator-i;ascii-numeric
relational regex imap4flags copy include variables body enotify
environment mailbox date index ihave duplicate mime foreverypart
extracttext
postmaster_address = postmas...@domain.tld
ssl_dh = # hidden, use -P to show it
Also, can you make a hex dump of the binary (using `sieve-dump -h
<your-script-binary>.svbin`).
As said the svbin is identical to the one create by the previous version.
Comparing the dump:
Block 0 differs because it has the source file name.
Block 1 is identical
Block 2 is identical. It is this block that is declared corrupt.
Finally, can you try to explicitly delete the binary (preferably after
preserving it elsewhere) so that it is guaranteed to be created fresh?
I did each time.
## Success at my end:
Spot the difference...
Address Line Code
00000000: DEBUG BLOCK: 3
00000001: EXTENSIONS [1]:
00000002: vacation
00000004: 3: VACATION
00000007: 5: seconds: NUM 86400
Address Line Code
00000000: DEBUG BLOCK: 3
00000001: EXTENSIONS [1]:
00000002: vacation
00000004: 2: VACATION
00000007: 4: seconds: NUM 5
00000009: Binary is corrupt.
The line numbers differs and 86400 is read as 5. It is like it has
forgotten the size of an integer or is confused about endianness.
There is something strange, like an #if that guesses wrong. At least
I have somewhere to start looking.
Thank you for checking at your end, I was worried the RC had
introduced an error and your result suggests not. RCs are for testing
and I am.
The number is stored as a chain of bytes of which the most significant
bit indicates whether the next byte still belongs to the number. If this
bit is somehow interpreted wrong, the first byte of this number would
read as 5, thereby returning '5' as the result and ignoring subsequent
bytes (causing corruption at the next item to read).
Since you're using SunOS, your compiler may be doing something funky.
Which compiler is used anyway? Perhaps different versions for the
Dovecot releases that do and don't work?
Does it help when you change the "> 0" at the following code position to
"!= 0" ?
https://github.com/dovecot/pigeonhole/blob/master/src/lib-sieve/sieve-binary-code.c#L300
Regards,
Stephan.
