security/clamav: Segmentation fault when running clamav in a 32-bit jail on a 64-bit host

[Kostik Belousov]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:06:49PM -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> On 8/27/10 12:54 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:46:48PM -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> >> On 8/27/10 12:33 PM, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>>> I have a few clamav instances running in jails on 32-bit hosts without
> >>>> any issues.  A few days ago one of these jails was migrated to a 64-bit
> >>>> host (8.1-RELEASE), where I noticed clamd (0.96.2_1) segfaults when queried.
> >>>>
> >>>> The issue seems specific to 32bit/64bit compatibility.  I have a gdb
> >>>> session available here: http://gist.github.com/549964
> >>>>
> >>>> Any thoughts on if this is possible?
> >>>
> >>> Try
> >>>
> >>> Bytecode no
> >>>
> >>> in clamd.conf ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> It was set to 'yes' initially.  I thought it was disabled with building
> >> without JIT.  At any rate, no, it still segfaults with the same backtrace.
> > 
> > 1) Is clamd built with debugging symbols enabled?  If not, you might want
> > to rebuild it with such, else it might be difficult to debug the
> > problem.
> > 
> 
> It wasn't initially, but is now.
> 
> > Also, if the segfault happens after performing the above, can you
> > provide output from "bt full" instead of just "bt"?
> > 
> 
> Of course.  The new backtrace is here: http://gist.github.com/553734
I suspect that this was fixed in r210796/HEAD and r211138/RELENG_8.

> 
> > 2) Was the software rebuilt from source after the upgrade from i386 to
> > amd64, or are you expecting the software to work without any hitches
> > running on amd64 with lib32 (32-bit compatibility libaries)?  The latter
> > is not always possible/the case.
> > 
> 
> clamav was rebuilt from ports.  I previously went as far as downgrading
> to the previous version, to rule out something between 0.96.1 and
> 0.96.2; same results there.
Was clamav rebuilt in the 32-bit jail ? At least your backtrace shows
32-bit image being executed.

> 
> > I have no familiarity with the software or functions in question, but an
> > initial guess would be that some piece of the code is making assumptions
> > about the size of pointers (expecting 4 (32-bit) rather than 8
> > (64-bit)).  Speculative on my part, but I ponder such when seeing code
> > like somefunc(sizeof(int)).
Absolute nonsense.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20100827/550f1284/attachment.pgp