pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Checking PCP archives - RFC

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Checking PCP archives - RFC
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 09:28:19 -0400
Cc: PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <519C0AA9.5010706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <519AC94B.9020904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y0mfvxgl3r3.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <519C0AA9.5010706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Hi -

> I considered it, but only briefly ... I think there is more bang for 
> buck in making bad archives in a structured-directed way, rather than 
> changing random bytes in an archive (or did you have some more 
> sophisticated sort of fuzzer in mind?).

(Yes, fuzzing can include structured data, by teaching it the grammar of
PCP archives but then messing with the productions randomly.)


> [...] but conditionally based on an environment variable (or maybe even a 
> type 
> modifier to pmNewContext, in the flavor of PM_CTXFLAG_SECURE) is 
> certainly feasible.  I'll add this to the TODO list.

Righto.

> I still think pmlogcheck needs to be a separate tool, especially if it 
> grows into something that can repair some classes of corruption, as per 
> my earlier mail exchange with Nathan.

Sure (though till corruption repair comes online, this could be a few-liner
program that just uses the hypothetical PM_CTXFLAG_LINT flag).

- FChE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>