From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Tue May 3 23:38:37 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748F2B2CAB3 for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 23:38:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D7801981 for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 23:38:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u43NcaeK084592 for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 23:38:37 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 206626] Integer overflow in nfssvc system call Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 23:38:36 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: security X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: rmacklem@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable9? mfc-stable10? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 23:38:37 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D206626 --- Comment #7 from Rick Macklem --- It is only broken if the application sends a bogus value for the nid_namelen. Since the daemon is careful not to do that and it is the only legitimate process that makes the call, I don't consider that incorrect code. If you want to commit a bounds check, go ahead. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=