[PATCH] Improve DST handling (Bug 23102, Bug 21942, Bug 18018, Bug, 23259, CVE-2011-0536 ).
Carlos O'Donell
carlos@redhat.com
Tue Jun 12 03:08:00 GMT 2018
- Previous message (by thread): [PATCH] Improve DST handling (Bug 23102, Bug 21942, Bug 18018, Bug, 23259, CVE-2011-0536 ).
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH] Improve DST handling (Bug 23102, Bug 21942, Bug 18018, Bug, 23259, CVE-2011-0536 ).
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
On 06/11/2018 04:04 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jun 07 2018, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Careful, is_dst () takes as input the start of a DST sequence,
>> but that sequence is not validated yet.
>
> You have already validated the prefix by comparing it with the string,
> and you only have to check the next character.
By validating it against the abstract definition of the ELF gABI spec
for a DST name it prevents any future caller from accidentally straying
outside of that contract without having to make two changes: (1) change
the comparison DST and (2) change what we accept in is_dst().
Also I find the code ends up being simpler. Right now we compute the
longest DST name possible and then the checks are much easier after
that.
Is there a strong performance argument to be made for not doing the
validation?
Cheers,
Carlos.
- Previous message (by thread): [PATCH] Improve DST handling (Bug 23102, Bug 21942, Bug 18018, Bug, 23259, CVE-2011-0536 ).
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH] Improve DST handling (Bug 23102, Bug 21942, Bug 18018, Bug, 23259, CVE-2011-0536 ).
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list