In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:21:08 +0900 (JST)),
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL PROTECTED](B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > It seems to me that the following code is off-by-one bug.
:
> Well, 2.2 has some comment on this:
So, I'd suggest to put the comment back to 2.4/2.6 instead.
(Note: net/socket.c refers this around MAX_SOCK_ADDR definition.)
Signed-off-by: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===== net/unix/af_unix.c 1.73 vs edited =====
--- 1.73/net/unix/af_unix.c 2005-03-10 13:42:53 +09:00
+++ edited/net/unix/af_unix.c 2005-03-28 17:31:33 +09:00
@@ -188,6 +188,15 @@
if (!sunaddr || sunaddr->sun_family != AF_UNIX)
return -EINVAL;
if (sunaddr->sun_path[0]) {
+ /*
+ * This may look like an off by one error but it is
+ * a bit more subtle. 108 is the longest valid AF_UNIX
+ * path for a binding. sun_path[108] doesnt as such
+ * exist. However in kernel space we are guaranteed that
+ * it is a valid memory location in our kernel
+ * address buffer.
+ */
+ if (len > sizeof(*sunaddr))
((char *)sunaddr)[len]=0;
len = strlen(sunaddr->sun_path)+1+sizeof(short);
return len;
--
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
