This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] [BZ 17542] sunrpc: conditional jump depends on uninitialised value in svc_getreq_common
- From: Brad Hubbard <bhubbard at redhat dot com>
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:48:20 +1000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BZ 17542] sunrpc: conditional jump depends on uninitialised value in svc_getreq_common
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54597868 dot 3060408 at redhat dot com> <mvmr3xif28d dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <20141105091434 dot GJ17703 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20141209223328 dot GA4523 at domone>
- Reply-to: bhubbard at redhat dot com
On 12/10/2014 08:33 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:44:34PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:03:46AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Brad Hubbard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Following is the valgrind warning.
==26802== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==26802== at 0x5343A25: svc_getreq_common (in /lib64/libc-2.5.so)
==26802== by 0x534357B: svc_getreqset (in /lib64/libc-2.5.so)
Why was svc_getreqset called with file descriptors that were never seen
That is likely an application bug, but it might not be a bad idea to
include the patch anyway. Failing the NULL check and returning seems
better than allowing to dereference arbitrary pointer values.
As its better to always fail than only sometimes I also think its good
to include it.
Does anyone want me to follow up on the upstream bug?
Any advice on how best to do so? I assume a "ping" in the Bugzilla and the
mailing list but what format should they have (definite noob here but I want to
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Senior Software Maintenance Engineer
Red Hat Global Support Services
Asia Pacific Region