* [PATCH] avoid setting __SLBF and __SNBF on a file descriptor at the same time
@ 2016-12-15 16:40 Giuseppe Musumeci
2016-12-15 17:15 ` Jeff Johnston
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Giuseppe Musumeci @ 2016-12-15 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: newlib
Hi all,
I think I found an issue in __smakebuf_r which could lead to memory trashing.
__sinit initialises some common file descriptors as line buffered and
relies on the first users of such FDs to call __smakebuf_r. If
__smakebuf_r realises there's no space for a buffer (malloc returns
NULL), it makes them unbuffered. However, while setting the __SNBF
bit, it doesn't clear the __SLBF bit in the flags. Depending on the
order in which functions check buffering flags in the FD, sometime
they assume it's line buffered (e.g. __sfvwrite_r), trashing
application memory that's not really been allocated to them.
The following patch should solve the problem:
diff --git a/newlib/libc/stdio/makebuf.c b/newlib/libc/stdio/makebuf.c
index c8a50c5..e4cfd36 100644
--- a/newlib/libc/stdio/makebuf.c
+++ b/newlib/libc/stdio/makebuf.c
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ _DEFUN(__smakebuf_r, (ptr, fp),
{
if (!(fp->_flags & __SSTR))
{
- fp->_flags |= __SNBF;
+ fp->_flags = (fp->_flags & ~__SLBF) | __SNBF;
fp->_bf._base = fp->_p = fp->_nbuf;
fp->_bf._size = 1;
}
@@ -115,6 +115,6 @@ _DEFUN(__smakebuf_r, (ptr, fp),
* even when not outputting to a terminal to ease debugging. */
if (fp->_file == 1 || fp->_file == 2 ||
(couldbetty && _isatty_r (ptr, fp->_file)))
- fp->_flags |= __SLBF;
+ fp->_flags = (fp->_flags & ~__SNBF) | __SLBF;
}
}
Thanks and regards,
Giuseppe Musumeci
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] avoid setting __SLBF and __SNBF on a file descriptor at the same time
2016-12-15 16:40 [PATCH] avoid setting __SLBF and __SNBF on a file descriptor at the same time Giuseppe Musumeci
@ 2016-12-15 17:15 ` Jeff Johnston
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Johnston @ 2016-12-15 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Giuseppe Musumeci; +Cc: newlib
Makes sense. Patch applied.
Thanks,
-- Jeff J.
----- Original Message -----
> Hi all,
> I think I found an issue in __smakebuf_r which could lead to memory trashing.
>
> __sinit initialises some common file descriptors as line buffered and
> relies on the first users of such FDs to call __smakebuf_r. If
> __smakebuf_r realises there's no space for a buffer (malloc returns
> NULL), it makes them unbuffered. However, while setting the __SNBF
> bit, it doesn't clear the __SLBF bit in the flags. Depending on the
> order in which functions check buffering flags in the FD, sometime
> they assume it's line buffered (e.g. __sfvwrite_r), trashing
> application memory that's not really been allocated to them.
>
> The following patch should solve the problem:
>
>
> diff --git a/newlib/libc/stdio/makebuf.c b/newlib/libc/stdio/makebuf.c
> index c8a50c5..e4cfd36 100644
> --- a/newlib/libc/stdio/makebuf.c
> +++ b/newlib/libc/stdio/makebuf.c
> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ _DEFUN(__smakebuf_r, (ptr, fp),
> {
> if (!(fp->_flags & __SSTR))
> {
> - fp->_flags |= __SNBF;
> + fp->_flags = (fp->_flags & ~__SLBF) | __SNBF;
> fp->_bf._base = fp->_p = fp->_nbuf;
> fp->_bf._size = 1;
> }
> @@ -115,6 +115,6 @@ _DEFUN(__smakebuf_r, (ptr, fp),
> * even when not outputting to a terminal to ease debugging. */
> if (fp->_file == 1 || fp->_file == 2 ||
> (couldbetty && _isatty_r (ptr, fp->_file)))
> - fp->_flags |= __SLBF;
> + fp->_flags = (fp->_flags & ~__SNBF) | __SLBF;
> }
> }
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Giuseppe Musumeci
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-12-15 17:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-12-15 16:40 [PATCH] avoid setting __SLBF and __SNBF on a file descriptor at the same time Giuseppe Musumeci
2016-12-15 17:15 ` Jeff Johnston
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).