On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 23:21 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:31:53PM -0600, Marc Schwartz (via MN) wrote: > > > >From kernel-2.6.12-1.1456_FC4: > > > > $ cat /proc/i8k > > 1.0 A38 ? 54 -22 1 -22 79260 -1 2 > > > > > > >From kernel-2.6.14-1.1633_FC4: > > > > $ cat /proc/i8k > > 1.0 A38 52 -22 1 -22 77340 -1 2 > > Ok, that looks like unintentional breakage. I've brought this > up upstream. Will try and get any resulting fix backported to FC4 > when that appears. > > > What is different is the field that should show the service tag ID for > > the laptop. This is the '?' in the first instance (3rd field) and > > appears to be missing in the second. > > > > This would perhaps explain the SEGFAULT, since in reviewing the code in > > i8krellm.c for the __i8k_get_proc_info() function, there are a series of > > strcpy's, parsing the fields from the result of getting the /proc/i8k > > info. > > That code is really quite icky, and screams "scanf" to me. > Whilst that kernel interface *shouldnt* change, things like this > do happen, and it could have taken defensive action instead of > being as fragile as it is. Great! Thanks for your assistance here Dave. Thanks also to Ernest for his offlist guidance. Best regards, Marc -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list