netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Off-by-one bug at unix_mkname ?

To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Off-by-one bug at unix_mkname ?
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:25:39 +0200 (MEST)
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, from-linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050328.173938.26746686.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
References: <200503281700.HHE91205.FtVLOStGOSPMYJFMN@I-love.sakura.ne.jp> <20050328.172108.30349253.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20050328.173938.26746686.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 28 2005 17:39, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / åèèæ wrote:

>+               *      This may look like an off by one error but it is
>+               *      a bit more subtle. 108 is the longest valid AF_UNIX
>+               *      path for a binding. sun_path[108] doesnt as such
>+               *      exist. However in kernel space we are guaranteed that
>+               *      it is a valid memory location in our kernel
>+               *      address buffer.
>+               */

Now, does 2.6. _still_ guarantee that 108 is a valid offset?



Jan Engelhardt
-- 
No TOFU for me, please.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>