From owner-freebsd-security Sat Sep 8 10:17: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C324E37B406 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 10:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 8F2ED81D05; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 12:17:02 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 12:17:02 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Bruce Evans Cc: "Andrew R. Reiter" , Kris Kennaway , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: netbsd vulnerabilities Message-ID: <20010908121702.H2965@elvis.mu.org> References: <20010908054930.F2965@elvis.mu.org> <20010909030758.B48694-100000@alphplex.bde.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010909030758.B48694-100000@alphplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 03:14:37AM +1000 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Bruce Evans [010908 12:15] wrote: > On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > * Andrew R. Reiter [010908 05:44] wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > > > The attached code fixes the semop bug which is specified in the recent > > > NetBSD security announcement. I'm not positive about hte naming scheme > > > wanted by all in terms of: size_t vs. unsigned int vs. unsigned. I made > > > it u_int b/c i saw in sysproto.h that there seemed to be more u_int's > > > instead of size_t's :-) Great logic. > > > > Uh, why don't you just compare the int arg against 0, if it's less than > > then just return EINVAL. > > The API apparently specified that it is unsigned (I checked the Linux > version). And don't use the hack of type punning the unsigned to int > (this part already happens) and checking for the int being less than 0 > (this check is missing). We already use the hack of type punning an > int to an unsigned in too many places (readv, writev, ...). Wait, don't check against < 0? Ok, then how do we fix it? -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message