> I'm not sure how intentionally corrupting the stack with a debugger to > cause a segfault constitutes a glibc bug...
Setting the auxiliary vector to empty is not really "corrupting" it. You just need to ask yourself whether you consider it acceptable for the C library to segfault when presented with an empty auxiliary vector as input. Perhaps you do, in which case this behaviour isn't a bug. On the other hand, if you think the C library should be able to cope more elegantly with an empty auxiliary vector then my report provides evidence that something is not working as it should. Your choice. I don't claim that my technique for demonstrating the problem "constitutes" a bug. By all means go ahead and demonstrate the problem by patching the kernel instead, if you prefer. Or perhaps you could demonstrate it with valgrind. Or perhaps you're not interested in glibc bugs that do not affect the normal use of glibc on Linux. I don't really know who you are and what your area of interest is. -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/901252 Title: atoi segfaults if the auxiliary vector was empty To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/eglibc/+bug/901252/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
