Am Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2015, 01:22:38 schrieb Vadim Kochan:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:57:51PM +0300, Vadim Kochan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 06:52:49PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
> > > > On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Rustad, Mark D <mark.d.rus...@intel.com>
wrote:
> > > >> On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Vadim Kochan <vadi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Would you please check this fix ?
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/misc/ss.c b/misc/ss.c
> > > >> index 03f92fa..3a826e4 100644
> > > >> --- a/misc/ss.c
> > > >> +++ b/misc/ss.c
> > > >> @@ -683,8 +683,8 @@ static inline void sock_addr_set_str(inet_prefix
> > > >> *prefix, char **ptr)
> > > >>
> > > >> static inline char *sock_addr_get_str(const inet_prefix *prefix)
> > > >> {
> > > >> - char *tmp ;
> > > >> - memcpy(&tmp, prefix->data, sizeof(char *));
> > > >> + char *tmp;
> > > >> + memcpy(&tmp, &prefix->data[0], sizeof(char *));
> > > >>
> > > >> return tmp;
> > > >>
> > > >> }
> > > >
> > > > That surely is not a fix! The destination of the memcpy is the address
> > > > of an uninitialized stack variable! Both versions are equally bad.> >
> > > I probably over-reacted, but using memcpy to access a pointer in this
> > > way is just ugly. For one thing, it circumvents any sanity-checking
> > > that the compiler can do. And changing the prefix->data to
> > > &prefix->data[0] should be exactly the same thing and therefore should
> > > not fix anything. Anyway, never mind that.
> > >
> > > Looking at more of the code, it looks to me like the the string pointer
> > > in data can sometimes point to a literal string instead of allocated
> > > memory when proc is in use. Free would not be happy with that. Look at
> > > the use of variable peer in function unix_stats_print.>
> > Yes that right, I am already looking on this ...
> >
> > > --
> > > Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
>
> I did partially revert of the buggy commit and it does not crash, but I will
> do more testing, and after will send the patch and will try to prepare some
> test scripts for ss.
>
> The crash appears only if to dump processes info from /proc, which might
> be caused that netlink stats returned error, probably by wrong request
> (not supported attribute or flag ?).the reason it uses proc for me is my self compiled (and trimmed) kernel which disabled all *_diag modules which seem to be required by ss. I didn't know this. On the other hand, I managed to find a bug this way :-) Marc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
