Re: [Full-disclosure] readdir_r considered harmful

From: Ben Hutchings (ben_at_decadentplace.org.uk)
Date: 11/01/05

  • Next message: Martijn Lievaart: "RE: [Full-disclosure] RE: Full-Disclosure Digest, Vol 8, Issue 48" 
    To: 3APA3A <3APA3A@SECURITY.NNOV.RU>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:02:45 +0000

    3APA3A wrote:
    > Dear Ben Hutchings,
    >
    >
    > If someone uses pathconf to determine buffer size it's his own problem
    > and he creates vulnerability by himself. You can list such applications
    > as vulnerable to race conditions.
    <snip>
    > NAME_MAX is defined in limits.h and should be 255 according to latest
    > POSIX extension. I see no problem with POSIX standard in this case.
    >
    > See:
    > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/limits.h.html
    <snip>

    If you had read the above page more carefully, you would have seen these
    paragraphs:

    "The values in the following list may be constants within an
    implementation or may vary from one pathname to another. For example,
    file systems or directories may have different characteristics.

    "A definition of one of the values shall be omitted from the <limits.h>
    header on specific implementations where the corresponding value is
    equal to or greater than the stated minimum, but where the value can
    vary depending on the file to which it is applied. The actual value
    supported for a specific pathname shall be provided by the pathconf()
    function." 

    -- 
Ben Hutchings
When you say `I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare ...
and say `Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*'. - Linus Torvalds

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
    Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

  • Next message: Martijn Lievaart: "RE: [Full-disclosure] RE: Full-Disclosure Digest, Vol 8, Issue 48"