Re: [platform-testers] bug#21755: new snapshot available: grep-2.21.82-fbc5

[Bruce Dubbs]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > I tested in a linuxfromscratch environment.  See
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter03/packages.html for
> > a
> > list of all packages.
>
> You're getting one unexpected failure, from pcre-jitstack.  That package
> list doesn't mention which version of libpcre the build used; do you
> happen to know what it was?  I'm not seeing the problem on x86-64 Ubuntu
> 15.10, which uses libpcre3 2:8.35-7.1ubuntu1.  Most likely the problem
> you're seeing is due to some bug in libpcre (which we have no control
> over) or in the way we interface to libpcre (which we'd want to fix, at
> least by refusing to link to the older libpcre implementation).

In a base LFS system, pcre is not installed at all.  I went back and 
tested on a minimal LFS system and got:

Testsuite summary for GNU grep 2.21.82-fbc5
============================================================================
# TOTAL: 95
# PASS:  78
# SKIP:  15
# XFAIL: 2
# FAIL:  0
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0

and

# TOTAL: 139
# PASS:  132
# SKIP:  7
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL:  0
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0

My earlier report was for a fairly complete BLFS system and that did 
have pcre-8.37 installed:

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/pcre.html

Checking upstream, that version was released 4/28/2015.  Note that we 
are not using pcre2 (maybe we should).

Just to double check I rebuilt pcre, but I still get the failure in
pcre-jitstack.

As you probably noticed, the command

LC_ALL=C grep -P -n '^([/](?!/)|[^/])*~/.*' pcrejit.txt

gave a segmentation fault.

Running gdb, I get:

 Starting program: /usr/src/lfs-7.8-sources/grep-2.21.82-fbc5/src/grep 
-P -n '^([/](?!/)|[^/])*~/.*' pcrejit.txt

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
match (
    eptr=0x629ff7 "aaaaaaaaaa/aaaa/", 'a' <repeats 19 times>, 
"/aaaa/aaaaaa/aa/aaaaa/", 'a' <repeats 13 times>, "/aaaa/", 'a' <repeats 
21 times>, "/aaaa/aaaaaa/aa/aaaaa/", 'a' <repeats 13 times>, "/aaaa/", 
'a' <repeats 17 times>, "/aaaa/aaaaaa/aa/aaaaa/", 'a' <repeats 13 
times>, "/aaaa/aaaa"..., ecode=0x62759a "\035/~",
    mstart=0x628000 "/aaaa/aaaaaa/aa/aaaaa/", 'a' <repeats 13 times>, 
"/aa/", 'a' <repeats 34 times>, "/aaaa/aaaaaa/aa/aaaaa/", 'a' <repeats 
13 times>, "/aa/", 'a' <repeats 22 times>, "/aaaa/aaaaaa/aa/aaaaa/", 'a' 
<repeats 13 times>, "/aa/", 'a' <repeats 27 times>..., offset_top=4,
    md=0x7fffffffd1b0, eptrb=0x0, rdepth=16368) at pcre_exec.c:516


I cannot follow what is going on beyond that.  I suspect it is an issue 
with pcre vs pcre2.  Perhaps your test should look for a specific 
version of pcre.

  -- Bruce