[devel] [SCM] packages/bash3: heads/p9

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 05:47:00PM +0400, Ivan A. Melnikov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 03:11:05PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 04:32:08AM +0300, Alexey Appolonov wrote:
> > > 03.11.2020 01:18, Dmitry V. Levin пишет:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 09:35:43PM +0000, Alexey Appolonov wrote:
> > > >> Update of /people/alexey/packages/bash3.git
> > > > [...]
> > > >> commit 0db3057724a11b6e9f3bdca6a831370443aaa06e
> > > >> Author: Alexey Appolonov <alexey на altlinux.org>
> > > >> Date:   Tue Oct 27 14:36:56 2020 +0300
> > > >>
> > > >>      Preventing a segmentation fault in '_evalfile' func of 'evalfile.c'
> > > >>      
> > > >>      Index 'result' can be -1; The index is checked from the top also
> > > >>      (just in case).
> > > > Prevent a potential segmentation fault ...
> > > >
> > > >> commit 6c6399d5a7cb51ae53c196f0bfdfd92e43711544
> > > >> Author: Alexey Appolonov <alexey на altlinux.org>
> > > >> Date:   Tue Oct 27 13:53:08 2020 +0300
> > > >>
> > > >>      Preventing a segmentation fault in 'make_redirection' func of 'make_cmd.c'
> > > >>      
> > > >>      Index 'wlen' is -1 if a length of 'w->word' C-string is 0.
> > > > Likewise.
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >> diff --git a/bash/builtins/evalfile.c b/bash/builtins/evalfile.c
> > > >> index d05bc7b..9eec1a5 100644
> > > >> --- a/bash/builtins/evalfile.c
> > > >> +++ b/bash/builtins/evalfile.c
> > > >> @@ -149,7 +149,8 @@ file_error_and_exit:
> > > >>   
> > > >>     string = (char *)xmalloc (1 + file_size);
> > > >>     result = read (fd, string, file_size);
> > > >> -  string[result] = '\0';
> > > >> +  if (result >= 0 && result <= file_size)
> > > >> +    string[result] = '\0';
> > > >>   
> > > >>     return_val = errno;
> > > >>     close (fd);
> > > > Adding a check for result <= file_size?  Really?  Do you suppose that
> > > > read (fd, string, file_size) is ever capable of returning a value
> > > > greater than file_size?
> > > 
> > > I just think that the comfort of having such checks outweighs
> > > the negligible computational costs that they bring.
> > 
> > If read(2) could write more bytes than requested, then the buffer
> > would be overwritten before the check you're suggesting to add.
> [...]
> 
> IMO the interesting part here is not in read syscall semantics,
> but in the types involved.
> 
> As far as I understand, result is int here, and read returs ssize_t.
> If sizeof(ssize_t) > sizeof(int) (e.g. on x86_64),
> given large enough input file and enough memory, read can
> read more than 2^31 bytes and overflow result variable; this may lead
> to such result value that (result <= file_size) will evaluate
> to false (file_size is size_t, so result will be promoted to
> usigned long before comparison).
> 
> It seems to me that this is possible only when result is negative,
> so the first check (result >= 0) makes the second one unnecessary,
> but I would not dare to call this obvious.

Yes, this is obvious: since the type of file_size is size_t,
the condition "(int) file_size > file_size" can be true iff
"(int) file_size < 0 && file_size < ~ (size_t) -1U"

FWIW, the upstream fix in bash-4.0-rc1 was to introduce "ssize_t nr"
and use it instead of "int result" with proper checking, see
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/diff/builtins/evalfile.c?id=3185942a5234e26ab13fa02f9c51d340cec514f8


-- 
ldv