pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] PCP bugs from SGI

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP bugs from SGI
From: Martin Hicks <mort@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:11:34 -0500
Cc: kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Greg Banks <greg.n.banks@xxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1762449926.1194231268441576454.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1268429609.2642.690.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1762449926.1194231268441576454.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:52:56AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 
> ----- "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > OK, this was sloppy coding on my part, but it has probability of
> > occurrence that close to, or less than, the chance that I'll live to
> > 100
> > years old.
> > 
> > Because I'm retired and have nothing better to do (sigh), the
> > attached
> > patch addresses the issue ... if someone else would care to review it
> > and it looks acceptable, I'll gladly commit it into my oss tree.
> 
> Looking good.
> 
> The memory allocation based on the ntohl(pduProfile->numprof), or
> instprof->profile_len, value looks like it could still use some
> kind of ceiling sanity test?  (as per Gregs bug)

Yeah, it was that comment that struck me as the more important point.
Letting an arbitrary network-connected client allocate arbitrary amounts
of memory as root on the pmcd machine seems pretty terrible.

mh

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