On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 05:01:38AM +0200, J??r??mie Courr??ges-Anglas wrote:
>
> (Redirecting this to ports@)
>
> Could you folks test this patch against dovecot from -stable? I only
> did compile testing on -current. I don't know how the allocator(s)
> handle failures nor how would i_realloc handle pwbuf_size ==
> old_pwbuf_size, but this looks safe.
>
>
> $OpenBSD$
>
> Hack: we avoid the actual ERANGE error case by always providing a large
> enough buffer.
I'd prefer to use the diff I had commited when this issue first came
up although back then local auth didn't work at all without the hack
that was added. I don't have a 5.5 system around at the moment so
please check this builds first and then test as appropriate.
Index: Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/mail/dovecot/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.218.2.1
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.218.2.1 Makefile
--- Makefile 12 May 2014 09:40:19 -0000 1.218.2.1
+++ Makefile 22 Jun 2014 08:34:15 -0000
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ PKGNAME-postgresql= dovecot-postgresql-$
CATEGORIES= mail
MASTER_SITES= ${HOMEPAGE}releases/${V_MAJOR}/
-REVISION-server= 0
+REVISION-server= 1
SHARED_LIBS= dovecot-compression 0.0 \
dovecot-lda 2.0 \
Index: patches/patch-src_lib_ipwd_c
===================================================================
RCS file: patches/patch-src_lib_ipwd_c
diff -N patches/patch-src_lib_ipwd_c
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ patches/patch-src_lib_ipwd_c 22 Jun 2014 09:32:58 -0000
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+$OpenBSD$
+
+Revert http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.2/raw-rev/349d52c4ca51 to workaround
+non POSIX compliant getpwnam_r / getpwuid_r functions.
+
+--- src/lib/ipwd.c.orig Tue Nov 19 15:36:30 2013
++++ src/lib/ipwd.c Sun Jun 22 05:30:14 2014
+@@ -6,33 +6,41 @@
+
+ #include <unistd.h>
+
+-#define PWBUF_MIN_SIZE 128
+-#define GRBUF_MIN_SIZE 128
++#define DEFAULT_PWBUF_SIZE 16384
++#define DEFAULT_GRBUF_SIZE 16384
+
+ static void *pwbuf = NULL, *grbuf = NULL;
+ static size_t pwbuf_size, grbuf_size;
+
+ static void pw_init(void)
+ {
+- size_t old_pwbuf_size = pwbuf_size;
++ long size;
+
+- if (pwbuf == NULL || errno == ERANGE) {
+- pwbuf_size = nearest_power(old_pwbuf_size + 1);
+- if (pwbuf_size < PWBUF_MIN_SIZE)
+- pwbuf_size = PWBUF_MIN_SIZE;
+- pwbuf = i_realloc(pwbuf, old_pwbuf_size, pwbuf_size);
++ if (pwbuf == NULL) {
++ size = sysconf(_SC_GETPW_R_SIZE_MAX);
++ if (size < 0)
++ size = DEFAULT_PWBUF_SIZE;
++
++ pwbuf_size = size;
++ pwbuf = i_malloc(pwbuf_size);
+ }
+ }
+
+ static void gr_init(void)
+ {
+- size_t old_grbuf_size = grbuf_size;
++ long size;
+
+- if (grbuf == NULL || errno == ERANGE) {
+- grbuf_size = nearest_power(old_grbuf_size + 1);
+- if (grbuf_size < PWBUF_MIN_SIZE)
+- grbuf_size = PWBUF_MIN_SIZE;
+- grbuf = i_realloc(grbuf, old_grbuf_size, grbuf_size);
++ if (grbuf == NULL) {
++ size = sysconf(_SC_GETGR_R_SIZE_MAX);
++ /* Some BSDs return too low value for this. instead of trying
++ to figure out exactly which, just make sure it's at least
++ a reasonable size. if the real size is smaller, it doesn't
++ matter much that we waste a few kilobytes of memory. */
++ if (size < DEFAULT_GRBUF_SIZE)
++ size = DEFAULT_GRBUF_SIZE;
++
++ grbuf_size = size;
++ grbuf = i_malloc(grbuf_size);
+ }
+ }
+
+@@ -46,16 +54,8 @@ int i_getpwnam(const char *name, struct passwd *pwd_r)
+ {
+ struct passwd *result;
+
+- errno = 0;
+- do {
+- pw_init();
+- errno = getpwnam_r(name, pwd_r, pwbuf, pwbuf_size, &result);
+-#ifdef __OpenBSD__
+- /* OpenBSD returns 1 for all errors, assume it's ERANGE */
+- if (errno == 1)
+- errno = ERANGE;
+-#endif
+- } while (errno == ERANGE);
++ pw_init();
++ errno = getpwnam_r(name, pwd_r, pwbuf, pwbuf_size, &result);
+ if (result != NULL)
+ return 1;
+ if (errno == EINVAL) {
+@@ -69,16 +69,8 @@ int i_getpwuid(uid_t uid, struct passwd *pwd_r)
+ {
+ struct passwd *result;
+
+- errno = 0;
+- do {
+- pw_init();
+- errno = getpwuid_r(uid, pwd_r, pwbuf, pwbuf_size, &result);
+-#ifdef __OpenBSD__
+- /* OpenBSD returns 1 for all errors, assume it's ERANGE */
+- if (errno == 1)
+- errno = ERANGE;
+-#endif
+- } while (errno == ERANGE);
++ pw_init();
++ errno = getpwuid_r(uid, pwd_r, pwbuf, pwbuf_size, &result);
+ if (result != NULL)
+ return 1;
+ return errno == 0 ? 0 : -1;
+@@ -88,11 +80,8 @@ int i_getgrnam(const char *name, struct group *grp_r)
+ {
+ struct group *result;
+
+- errno = 0;
+- do {
+- gr_init();
+- errno = getgrnam_r(name, grp_r, grbuf, grbuf_size, &result);
+- } while (errno == ERANGE);
++ gr_init();
++ errno = getgrnam_r(name, grp_r, grbuf, grbuf_size, &result);
+ if (result != NULL)
+ return 1;
+ return errno == 0 ? 0 : -1;
+@@ -102,11 +91,8 @@ int i_getgrgid(gid_t gid, struct group *grp_r)
+ {
+ struct group *result;
+
+- errno = 0;
+- do {
+- gr_init();
+- errno = getgrgid_r(gid, grp_r, grbuf, grbuf_size, &result);
+- } while (errno == ERANGE);
++ gr_init();
++ errno = getgrgid_r(gid, grp_r, grbuf, grbuf_size, &result);
+ if (result != NULL)
+ return 1;
+ return errno == 0 ? 0 : -1;
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
