Bug 90712 – sys-apps/logwatch-5.2.2 reports Buffer overflow

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Brett 2005-04-28 06:35:29 UTC]

I did a huge logwatch.pl with Details set to high and a Date range of ALL looking at all .gz and logfiles. received this error.

send-mail: standardise() -- Buffer overflow
Can't send mail: sendmail process failed with error code 1

I use syslog-ng with the config from the security-how-to and I also changed all the configs in /etc/log.d/conf/logfiles to point to the correct logs.

The option to print to the screen worked so maybe this is an issue with my mail server. I run a Gentoo / Postfix-tls / cyrus-imapd / ldap server.


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Select daterange=ALL and Details=High with mail option.
2.have a bunch of huge logfiles and .gz
3.run logwatch.pl

Actual Results:  
It ran for about 6 minutes then reported this error
 logwatch.pl
send-mail: standardise() -- Buffer overflow
Can't send mail: sendmail process failed with error code 1

This is in my mail.log on my mail host.

Apr 28 09:30:44 ox postfix/smtpd[5909]: lost connection after DATA from
host.domain.net[192.168.1.251]
 



Expected Results:  
mailed the report

[Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2005-04-28 09:07:22 UTC]

Please, always include at least package name and version in your bug reports. 

[Comment 2 Brett 2005-04-28 11:16:23 UTC]

sys-apps/logwatch-5.2.2

sorry over site..

[Comment 3 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2005-04-28 12:19:05 UTC]

You forgot to reopen... ;-)

[Comment 4 SpanKY 2005-04-28 16:36:20 UTC]

does this happen with older logwatches ?

[Comment 5 SpanKY 2005-04-28 18:43:07 UTC]

or you could try 6.0.2 which i just put into portage ...

[Comment 6 Brett 2005-04-29 04:59:27 UTC]

This did not happen with the previous stable logwatch. All though I do not think I ever tried creating such a 'huge' report. 

It runs fine if I put a daterange of Yesterday. Not really affecting to me I just noticed the buffer overflow message and figured someone may want to look into it.

I will try 6.x when it goes stable.

[Comment 7 SpanKY 2005-04-29 05:53:50 UTC]

6.x wont go stable for a while unless there's good reason to :P

[Comment 8 SpanKY 2005-05-06 15:21:46 UTC]

well ?  does 6.0.2 work for you ?

[Comment 9 Brett 2005-05-07 10:43:30 UTC]

yup, tested it at home now I run it on 6 boxes at work. Some nice new shiny stuff in it also ;)

[Comment 10 SpanKY 2005-05-07 16:51:19 UTC]

ok, 6.0.2 is now in stable, thanks