Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:15:14 +1300 (NZDT) | From | Gevan Dutton <> | Subject | Re: ps -f bug |
| |
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Mike wrote:
> Hello.. A few days ago in my mad ravings I mentioned that ps was seg faulting > on me. It was brought to my attention that ps used to seg fault when the > -f flag was used, and when there were > 64 processes. I have found this > to still be true. I used "ps -fxaOp" and saw it segfault. I then used > "ps -xaOp" and it did not segfault. I then immediatly ran ps again with > it's first arguments, and it seg faulted.
I seem to remember being told there was another similar problem somewhere else, but here's the one I found -
--- ps.c~ Wed Sep 25 08:22:44 1996 +++ ps.c Wed Sep 25 08:20:01 1996 @@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ node = (struct tree_node *) malloc(sizeof(struct tree_node) * maxnodes); } - if (nodes > maxnodes) { + if (nodes >= maxnodes) { maxnodes *= 2; node = (struct tree_node *) realloc(node, sizeof(struct tree_node) * maxnodes);
| |