Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:26:45 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Added some defensive code to net/socket functions
Message-ID: <20011124212645.GA9292@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20011124031835 DOT GA22045 AT redhat DOT com> <20011124221357 DOT D14975 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20011124221357.D14975@cygbert.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 10:13:57PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 10:18:35PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> As I was in the process of adding the fd protection code that was just
>> mentioned in the cygwin mailing list, I decided to add the normal buffer
>> checking defensive code to most of the net/socket functions.  I've
>> verified that sshd, inetd, and telnetd still work, but I'd appreciate it
>> if I could get some assurance that I haven't broken anything else.
>> 
>> The checking in net.cc was a lot trickier than I had anticipated so
>> I could easily have gotten something wrong.
>> 
>> If someone could verify my changes, it would be great.
>
>They look ok except for one in cygwin_inet_network() which I've just
>changed.
>
>I have added the missing checks except for cygwin_rcmd() and
>cygwin_rexec().  They both have a so weird usage of the pointered
>parameters.  Hmm, I could add stuff at least partly.

herror, does something special when it's parameter is NULL, though.
I don't think a parameter check is appropriate here.  linux actually
gets a SEGV when you pass herror an invalid parameter.

cgf