* [PATCH rebase] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks
@ 2023-08-07 14:07 Christian Franke
2023-08-07 18:50 ` Corinna Vinschen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christian Franke @ 2023-08-07 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 101 bytes --]
Minor issue found during tests of the upcoming 'peflags --timestamp' patch.
--
Regards,
Christian
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-peflags-Fix-ULONG-range-checks.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1542 bytes --]
From 9da405da78e92dc8263239e25365bee3167f185e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christian Franke <christian.franke@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:42:50 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks
Don't use ULONG_MAX from <limits.h> because ULONG is not necessarily
'unsigned long'.
Signed-off-by: Christian Franke <christian.franke@t-online.de>
---
peflags.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/peflags.c b/peflags.c
index 93eaa0b..d98b121 100644
--- a/peflags.c
+++ b/peflags.c
@@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
#include <unistd.h>
#include <getopt.h>
#include <errno.h>
-#include <limits.h>
#if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MSYS__)
#include <sys/mman.h>
#endif
@@ -598,7 +597,7 @@ handle_num_option (const char *option_name,
|| sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x0000ffffffffffffULL
/* Just a ULONG value */
|| (sizeof_vals[option_index].is_ulong
- && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > ULONG_MAX))
+ && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x00000000ffffffffULL))
{
fprintf (stderr, "Invalid argument for %s: %s\n",
option_name, option_arg);
@@ -960,7 +959,7 @@ get_and_set_size (const pe_file *pep, sizeof_values_t *val)
}
else if (val->handle == DO_WRITE)
{
- if ((!pep->is_64bit || val->is_ulong) && val->value >= ULONG_MAX)
+ if ((!pep->is_64bit || val->is_ulong) && val->value > 0x00000000ffffffffULL)
{
fprintf (stderr, "%s: Skip writing %s, value too big\n",
pep->pathname, val->name);
--
2.39.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH rebase] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks
2023-08-07 14:07 [PATCH rebase] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks Christian Franke
@ 2023-08-07 18:50 ` Corinna Vinschen
2023-08-08 8:06 ` Christian Franke
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2023-08-07 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
Hi Christian,
On Aug 7 16:07, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> Minor issue found during tests of the upcoming 'peflags --timestamp' patch.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Christian
>
> From 9da405da78e92dc8263239e25365bee3167f185e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Christian Franke <christian.franke@t-online.de>
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:42:50 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks
>
> Don't use ULONG_MAX from <limits.h> because ULONG is not necessarily
> 'unsigned long'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Franke <christian.franke@t-online.de>
> ---
> peflags.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/peflags.c b/peflags.c
> index 93eaa0b..d98b121 100644
> --- a/peflags.c
> +++ b/peflags.c
> @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <getopt.h>
> #include <errno.h>
> -#include <limits.h>
> #if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MSYS__)
> #include <sys/mman.h>
> #endif
> @@ -598,7 +597,7 @@ handle_num_option (const char *option_name,
> || sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x0000ffffffffffffULL
> /* Just a ULONG value */
> || (sizeof_vals[option_index].is_ulong
> - && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > ULONG_MAX))
> + && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x00000000ffffffffULL))
What about using MAXDWORD or MAXULONG32 instead?
Corinna
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH rebase] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks
2023-08-07 18:50 ` Corinna Vinschen
@ 2023-08-08 8:06 ` Christian Franke
2023-08-08 8:37 ` Corinna Vinschen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christian Franke @ 2023-08-08 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 989 bytes --]
Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Aug 7 16:07, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> Minor issue found during tests of the upcoming 'peflags --timestamp' patch.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Christian
>>
>> ...
>> diff --git a/peflags.c b/peflags.c
>> index 93eaa0b..d98b121 100644
>> --- a/peflags.c
>> +++ b/peflags.c
>> @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
>> #include <unistd.h>
>> #include <getopt.h>
>> #include <errno.h>
>> -#include <limits.h>
>> #if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MSYS__)
>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>> #endif
>> @@ -598,7 +597,7 @@ handle_num_option (const char *option_name,
>> || sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x0000ffffffffffffULL
>> /* Just a ULONG value */
>> || (sizeof_vals[option_index].is_ulong
>> - && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > ULONG_MAX))
>> + && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x00000000ffffffffULL))
> What about using MAXDWORD or MAXULONG32 instead?
Of course :-)
Christian
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-peflags-Fix-ULONG-range-checks.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1547 bytes --]
From 8c8537fbc08d677651eee3055e5b0c6c9873804d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christian Franke <christian.franke@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:58:39 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks
Don't use ULONG_MAX from <limits.h> because ULONG is not necessarily
'unsigned long'. Use MAXULONG32 instead.
Signed-off-by: Christian Franke <christian.franke@t-online.de>
---
peflags.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/peflags.c b/peflags.c
index f215704..1a61da7 100644
--- a/peflags.c
+++ b/peflags.c
@@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
#include <unistd.h>
#include <getopt.h>
#include <errno.h>
-#include <limits.h>
#if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MSYS__)
#include <sys/mman.h>
#endif
@@ -696,7 +695,7 @@ handle_num_option (const char *option_name,
|| sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x0000ffffffffffffULL
/* Just a ULONG value */
|| (sizeof_vals[option_index].is_ulong
- && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > ULONG_MAX))
+ && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > MAXULONG32))
{
fprintf (stderr, "Invalid argument for %s: %s\n",
option_name, option_arg);
@@ -1092,7 +1091,7 @@ get_and_set_size (const pe_file *pep, sizeof_values_t *val)
}
else if (val->handle == DO_WRITE)
{
- if ((!pep->is_64bit || val->is_ulong) && val->value >= ULONG_MAX)
+ if ((!pep->is_64bit || val->is_ulong) && val->value > MAXULONG32)
{
fprintf (stderr, "%s: Skip writing %s, value too big\n",
pep->pathname, val->name);
--
2.39.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH rebase] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks
2023-08-08 8:06 ` Christian Franke
@ 2023-08-08 8:37 ` Corinna Vinschen
2023-08-08 8:40 ` Christian Franke
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2023-08-08 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Franke; +Cc: cygwin-apps
On Aug 8 10:06, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > On Aug 7 16:07, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > > Minor issue found during tests of the upcoming 'peflags --timestamp' patch.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Christian
> > >
> > > ...
> > > diff --git a/peflags.c b/peflags.c
> > > index 93eaa0b..d98b121 100644
> > > --- a/peflags.c
> > > +++ b/peflags.c
> > > @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
> > > #include <unistd.h>
> > > #include <getopt.h>
> > > #include <errno.h>
> > > -#include <limits.h>
> > > #if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MSYS__)
> > > #include <sys/mman.h>
> > > #endif
> > > @@ -598,7 +597,7 @@ handle_num_option (const char *option_name,
> > > || sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x0000ffffffffffffULL
> > > /* Just a ULONG value */
> > > || (sizeof_vals[option_index].is_ulong
> > > - && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > ULONG_MAX))
> > > + && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x00000000ffffffffULL))
> > What about using MAXDWORD or MAXULONG32 instead?
>
> Of course :-)
>
> Christian
>
Pushed. I've started deploying a new release.
Thanks!
Corinna
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH rebase] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks
2023-08-08 8:37 ` Corinna Vinschen
@ 2023-08-08 8:40 ` Christian Franke
2023-08-08 8:55 ` Corinna Vinschen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christian Franke @ 2023-08-08 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 8 10:06, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>> Hi Christian,
>>>
>>> On Aug 7 16:07, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>> Minor issue found during tests of the upcoming 'peflags --timestamp' patch.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> diff --git a/peflags.c b/peflags.c
>>>> index 93eaa0b..d98b121 100644
>>>> --- a/peflags.c
>>>> +++ b/peflags.c
>>>> @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
>>>> #include <unistd.h>
>>>> #include <getopt.h>
>>>> #include <errno.h>
>>>> -#include <limits.h>
>>>> #if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MSYS__)
>>>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>>>> #endif
>>>> @@ -598,7 +597,7 @@ handle_num_option (const char *option_name,
>>>> || sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x0000ffffffffffffULL
>>>> /* Just a ULONG value */
>>>> || (sizeof_vals[option_index].is_ulong
>>>> - && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > ULONG_MAX))
>>>> + && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x00000000ffffffffULL))
>>> What about using MAXDWORD or MAXULONG32 instead?
>> Of course :-)
>>
>> Christian
>>
> Pushed. I've started deploying a new release.
I'm currently working on 'rebase -c, --checksum' and found one minor
issue: pechecksum.* are missing in SRC_DISTFILES.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH rebase] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks
2023-08-08 8:40 ` Christian Franke
@ 2023-08-08 8:55 ` Corinna Vinschen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2023-08-08 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Franke; +Cc: cygwin-apps
On Aug 8 10:40, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 8 10:06, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > > Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > > > Hi Christian,
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 7 16:07, Christian Franke via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > > > > Minor issue found during tests of the upcoming 'peflags --timestamp' patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Christian
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > diff --git a/peflags.c b/peflags.c
> > > > > index 93eaa0b..d98b121 100644
> > > > > --- a/peflags.c
> > > > > +++ b/peflags.c
> > > > > @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
> > > > > #include <unistd.h>
> > > > > #include <getopt.h>
> > > > > #include <errno.h>
> > > > > -#include <limits.h>
> > > > > #if defined (__CYGWIN__) || defined (__MSYS__)
> > > > > #include <sys/mman.h>
> > > > > #endif
> > > > > @@ -598,7 +597,7 @@ handle_num_option (const char *option_name,
> > > > > || sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x0000ffffffffffffULL
> > > > > /* Just a ULONG value */
> > > > > || (sizeof_vals[option_index].is_ulong
> > > > > - && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > ULONG_MAX))
> > > > > + && sizeof_vals[option_index].value > 0x00000000ffffffffULL))
> > > > What about using MAXDWORD or MAXULONG32 instead?
> > > Of course :-)
> > >
> > > Christian
> > >
> > Pushed. I've started deploying a new release.
>
> I'm currently working on 'rebase -c, --checksum' and found one minor issue:
> pechecksum.* are missing in SRC_DISTFILES.
Ok, I stopped the deployment. Are you going to send fixes?
Corinna
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-08-08 8:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-08-07 14:07 [PATCH rebase] peflags: Fix ULONG range checks Christian Franke
2023-08-07 18:50 ` Corinna Vinschen
2023-08-08 8:06 ` Christian Franke
2023-08-08 8:37 ` Corinna Vinschen
2023-08-08 8:40 ` Christian Franke
2023-08-08 8:55 ` Corinna Vinschen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).