ID: 40600 Updated by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reported By: stas at FreeBSD dot org -Status: Assigned +Status: Bogus Bug Type: POSIX related Operating System: FreeBSD PHP Version: 5.2.1 Assigned To: iliaa New Comment:
Thank you for taking the time to write to us, but this is not a bug. Please double-check the documentation available at http://www.php.net/manual/ and the instructions on how to report a bug at http://bugs.php.net/how-to-report.php The current code is fine, we should not hardcode buffer sizes if they cannot be retrieved, this could lead to exploitable situations. Also if the return buffer length of 0 it probably indicates a problem. Previous Comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2007-02-23 14:07:38] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ilia, please take a look at this, IIRC you added those sysconf() patches. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2007-02-23 13:55:02] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yeah... According to susv3: Yes, I know that, thanks. But that does not mean "if (buflen < 1)" is incorrect. I don't think that zero buflen is a correct value (and even if it is, it's useless). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2007-02-23 13:47:59] stas at FreeBSD dot org >>This patch covers two problems: >>1) The POSIX says that sysconf will return -1 on failure, >> thus the ( < check is definitely incorrect > >Oh? Care to elaborate? Yeah... According to susv3: "If name is an invalid value, sysconf() shall return -1 and set errno to indicate the error. If the variable corresponding to name has no limit, sysconf() shall return -1 without changing the value of errno. Note that indefinite limits do not imply infinite limits; see <limits.h>." >>2) It's safe to use the buffer of any size (according to >> POSIX), since you give the buffer length to these >> functions. > >Yeah, according to POSIX those functions must be >implemented. >But they are not. >it's better then give up on retriving this info just in >case the sysconf doesn't has these limit values. >I don't think it's any better to use hacks to workaround >missing FreeBSD > functionality. Ok, agree. It's open to you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2007-02-23 12:22:20] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >This patch covers two problems: >1) The POSIX says that sysconf will return -1 on failure, > thus the ( < check is definitely incorrect Oh? Care to elaborate? >2) It's safe to use the buffer of any size (according to > POSIX), since you give the buffer length to these > functions. Yeah, according to POSIX those functions must be implemented. But they are not. >it's better then give up on retriving this info just in >case the sysconf doesn't has these limit values. I don't think it's any better to use hacks to workaround missing FreeBSD functionality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2007-02-23 10:47:13] stas at FreeBSD dot org - if (buflen < 1) { - RETURN_FALSE; - } + if (buflen < 0) + buflen = 1024; >It might be safe to do it on FreeBSD when you know for sure >that this functionality is missing and it's safe to use 1K >buffer, but other systems might behave differently. This patch covers two problems: 1) The POSIX says that sysconf will return -1 on failure, thus the ( < 1) check is definitely incorrect 2) It's safe to use the buffer of any size (according to POSIX), since you give the buffer length to these functions. They'll return error if the buffer lenght isn't enough - it's better then give up on retriving this info just in case the sysconf doesn't has these limit values. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at http://bugs.php.net/40600 -- Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=40600&edit=1
