* [Bug stdio/14771] add length sanity check to snprintf
2012-10-26 10:06 [Bug stdio/14771] New: add length sanity check to snprintf fweimer at redhat dot com
@ 2013-10-08 15:55 ` neleai at seznam dot cz
2013-10-08 23:07 ` bugdal at aerifal dot cx
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: neleai at seznam dot cz @ 2013-10-08 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14771
Ondrej Bilka <neleai at seznam dot cz> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |neleai at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #1 from Ondrej Bilka <neleai at seznam dot cz> ---
Did you post a patch since sending this bug?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug stdio/14771] add length sanity check to snprintf
2012-10-26 10:06 [Bug stdio/14771] New: add length sanity check to snprintf fweimer at redhat dot com
2013-10-08 15:55 ` [Bug stdio/14771] " neleai at seznam dot cz
@ 2013-10-08 23:07 ` bugdal at aerifal dot cx
2013-10-08 23:18 ` bugdal at aerifal dot cx
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: bugdal at aerifal dot cx @ 2013-10-08 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14771
Rich Felker <bugdal at aerifal dot cx> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker <bugdal at aerifal dot cx> ---
snprintf is required by POSIX to return a negative value and set errno to
EOVERFLOW if the n argument is greater than INT_MAX. Actually I find it
difficult to see how this requirement is compatible with ISO C, which makes no
such requirement or allowance for what would otherwise be a spurious error, so
perhaps this should be filed as a bug against POSIX; an interpretation is
needed, at least. But assuming the requirement in POSIX stands, it's a bug for
glibc not to report an error when n is greater than INT_MAX.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug stdio/14771] add length sanity check to snprintf
2012-10-26 10:06 [Bug stdio/14771] New: add length sanity check to snprintf fweimer at redhat dot com
2013-10-08 15:55 ` [Bug stdio/14771] " neleai at seznam dot cz
2013-10-08 23:07 ` bugdal at aerifal dot cx
@ 2013-10-08 23:18 ` bugdal at aerifal dot cx
2013-10-18 11:24 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: bugdal at aerifal dot cx @ 2013-10-08 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14771
--- Comment #3 from Rich Felker <bugdal at aerifal dot cx> ---
I've reported the issue with the possible conflict between the standards on the
Austin Group tracker here:
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=761
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug stdio/14771] add length sanity check to snprintf
2012-10-26 10:06 [Bug stdio/14771] New: add length sanity check to snprintf fweimer at redhat dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-08 23:18 ` bugdal at aerifal dot cx
@ 2013-10-18 11:24 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2013-10-18 12:31 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fweimer at redhat dot com @ 2013-10-18 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14771
--- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> ---
The Austin Group has decided not to updated POSIX.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug stdio/14771] add length sanity check to snprintf
2012-10-26 10:06 [Bug stdio/14771] New: add length sanity check to snprintf fweimer at redhat dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-18 11:24 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
@ 2013-10-18 12:31 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2013-10-18 13:52 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fweimer at redhat dot com @ 2013-10-18 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14771
Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> ---
Patch posted: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-10/msg00630.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug stdio/14771] add length sanity check to snprintf
2012-10-26 10:06 [Bug stdio/14771] New: add length sanity check to snprintf fweimer at redhat dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-18 12:31 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
@ 2013-10-18 13:52 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2014-06-13 10:46 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2022-07-19 17:27 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2013-10-18 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14771
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
The Austin Group appears to have failed to address the conflict with C11
semantics. Is the Austin Group / WG14 liaison taking this up with WG14,
if the Austin Group view is that the C11 specifications are defective?
A fortification check obviously doesn't address the POSIX semantics, so a
separate bug would need opening for those if this one is considered to be
about fortification only.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug stdio/14771] add length sanity check to snprintf
2012-10-26 10:06 [Bug stdio/14771] New: add length sanity check to snprintf fweimer at redhat dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-18 13:52 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2014-06-13 10:46 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2022-07-19 17:27 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: fweimer at redhat dot com @ 2014-06-13 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14771
Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |security-
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug stdio/14771] add length sanity check to snprintf
2012-10-26 10:06 [Bug stdio/14771] New: add length sanity check to snprintf fweimer at redhat dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2014-06-13 10:46 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
@ 2022-07-19 17:27 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-07-19 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14771
Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |msebor at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from Joseph Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 29379 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread