-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 934
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add ".." to the list of local path prefixes in get_file()
#2013
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #2013 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 59.53% 57.70% -1.83%
==========================================
Files 187 187
Lines 23482 23482
Branches 2277 2277
==========================================
- Hits 13979 13551 -428
- Misses 8756 9222 +466
+ Partials 747 709 -38 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@magnified103 How do we reproduce this issue? |
I have edited the original comment for clarity. |
I guess the problem may still be there if u have ld.so in |
It runs fine when I set the interpreter to paths like |
For what is worth, when I tried to reproduce it, my
|
I'm no gdb expert, but is there a better way to handle those paths? Matching prefixes to toggle some flags is ugly (does it come from gdb output?). By the way, does the failing CI check relate to the patch itself? |
Yeah the CI is irrelevant to this patch. I've validated this bug after fixing a Pwntools bug locally (Gallopsled/pwntools#2347, and unrelated to that: Gallopsled/pwntools#2345) and this fix works well. For what is worth, I think we may want to remove the assertion overall? I am not sure why we need it in the first place right now. It is probably there to guard us against unexpected input? Thanks! |
This commit adds "../" to the list of local path prefixes.
Reproduce (assume that patchelf is in PATH)
Output: