|Summary:||yum doesn't handle bad xml very gracefully|
|Product:||Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5||Reporter:||Máirín Duffy <duffy>|
|Component:||yum||Assignee:||James Antill <james.antill>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:|
|Version:||5.1||CC:||bkearney, jhutar, jneedle, jturner|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-05-19 14:52:51 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
|Bug Depends On:||226169|
Description Máirín Duffy 2007-09-13 17:56:03 UTC
Hi, this is a clone of bug 226169 for a backport of the yum fix for RHEL 5. +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #226169 +++ Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): yum-3.0.1-5.el5 An excerpt of yum's behavior upon encountering bad xml: [root@milkbones ~]# yum check-update Loading "rhnplugin" plugin [ Loading "installonlyn" plugin Setting up repositories rhel-x86_64-server-5 100% |=========================| 1.2 kB 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files primary.xml.gz 100% |=========================| 867 kB 00:01 ################## 1039/2811 (process:12033): GLib-WARNING **: GError set over the top of a previous GError or uninitialized memory. This indicates a bug in someone's code. You must ensure an error is NULL before it's set. The overwriting error message was: Parsing primary.xml error: Entity 'gt' not defined (process:12033): GLib-WARNING **: GError set over the top of a previous GError or uninitialized memory. This indicates a bug in someone's code. You must ensure an error is NULL before it's set. The overwriting error message was: Parsing primary.xml error: Entity 'amp' not defined (process:12033): GLib-WARNING **: GError set over the top of a previous GError or uninitialized memory. This indicates a bug in someone's code. You must ensure an error is NULL before it's set. The overwriting error message was: Parsing primary.xml error: Entity 'amp' not defined -- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2007-01-31 14:46 EST -- Created an attachment (id=147045) traceback from jkt -- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2007-01-31 14:47 EST -- Created an attachment (id=147046) traceback from jneedle -- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2007-01-31 15:26 EST -- I vaguely remember fixing this -- can you try a rebuild of yum-metadata-parser from rawhide and see if it helps? -- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2007-08-03 16:19 EST -- anyone? -- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2007-09-13 13:51 EST -- This is definitely fixed in current code. If we want to push an update for RHEL5, then a new bug should be opened and pushed along through the process
Comment 1 RHEL Product and Program Management 2007-10-16 03:39:46 UTC
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
Comment 2 James Antill 2008-01-30 15:00:05 UTC
This should be fixed in the current yum-metadata-parser RHEL-5.2 errata.
Comment 9 James Antill 2008-04-23 13:53:32 UTC
Yeh, there's very little we can do about actual bad XML ... AIUI, because it's libxml that dies then. I had assumed that this BZ referred to things using & and > etc. So ... Máirín Duffy ... do you know what this BZ is about ?:)
Comment 10 Jeff Needle 2008-04-23 14:12:57 UTC
Hmm, milkbones - that's mine, so I guess this is mine to respond to. This was an intermittent error - can't reproduce it any more, but the GLIB-Warning messages were definitely Very Ugly and something that screamed "Bug me!", and this clone was in response to Jeremy's assertion that "This is definitely fixed in current code", so we wanted to make sure it got into the RHEL5 stream at some point. Sure, we can't do much about bogus XML, but when you start getting errors that say stuff like "This indicates a bug in someone's code." you should expect bug reports.
Comment 11 James Antill 2008-04-23 14:42:19 UTC
yeh, that's fine, and hopefully we've gotten rid of those messages now ... and in the latest code we don't do those messages for bad XML, but we do traceback which is almost as ugly :).
Comment 12 Daniel Veillard 2008-04-23 14:52:44 UTC
For reference: Bad XML is just not XML, explicit bias from the XML spec designer team (the the HTML parsing horror stories if you disagree :-) http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dt-fatal Daniel
Comment 16 Chris Ward 2008-06-17 15:48:53 UTC
Reminder: This bug includes the 'RHTS' QA Whiteboard Keyword. Don't forget to add 'RHTSdone' to the QA Whiteboard along with a comment describing where the RHTS test can be found once the RHTS test has been written. Otherwise, if an RHTS will not be created, please remove RHTS from the qa whiteboard.