Your message dated Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:33:49 +0000 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Bug#765606: Removed package(s) from unstable has caused the Debian Bug report #702943, regarding Debian GNU/kFreeBSD bind() truncates too long Unix domain socket pathname to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 702943: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=702943 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: kfreebsd-image-9.0-2-amd64 Version: 9.0-10 I found that bind() for Unix domain socket truncates the given socket pathname if the pathname is too long. bind() should be failed for too long pathnames. POSIX 2001 (IEEE Std 1003.1-2001) defines ENAMETOOLONG error for bind() as follows: | If the address family of the socket is AF_UNIX, then bind() shall fail if: | ... | [ENAMETOOLONG] | A component of a pathname exceeded {NAME_MAX} characters, or an entire | pathname exceeded {PATH_MAX} characters. Other platforms, including GNU/Linux and FreeBSD, fails with ENAMETOOLONG or EINVAL for too long pathnames. The maximum length varies, though. I compared various platforms. The result is here: https://github.com/akr/socket-test http://htmlpreview.github.com/?https://github.com/akr/socket-test/blob/master/results/index.html#unix-stream256c0 The following program reproduce the problem. It specify a pathname with 4108 bytes (including the terminating NUL) to bind() and it succeeds but actual socket pathname length is 104 bytes. The given pathname length is longer than NAME_MAX(255) and PATH_MAX(1024). So bind() should be failed according to POSIX. % uname -srvm GNU/kFreeBSD 9.0-2-amd64 #0 Sat Nov 24 04:44:27 UTC 2012 x86_64 % lsb_release -idrc Distributor ID: Debian Description: Debian GNU/kFreeBSD 7.0 (wheezy) Release: 7.0 Codename: wheezy % ls tst.c % cat tst.c #include <stddef.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <sys/socket.h> #include <sys/un.h> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int s, ret, len; char bigbuf[sizeof(struct sockaddr_un)+4000]; struct sockaddr_un *addr; printf("sizeof(sun_path): %d\n", (int)sizeof(addr->sun_path)); printf("NAME_MAX: %d\n", (int)NAME_MAX); printf("PATH_MAX: %d\n", (int)PATH_MAX); s = socket(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0); if (s == -1) { perror("socket"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } addr = (struct sockaddr_un *)bigbuf; memset(addr, '\0', sizeof(bigbuf)); addr->sun_family = AF_UNIX; len = sizeof(bigbuf)-offsetof(struct sockaddr_un, sun_path); printf("socket pathname length: %d\n", len); memset(addr->sun_path, 's', len-1); addr->sun_path[len-1] = '\0'; ret = bind(s, (struct sockaddr *)addr, sizeof(bigbuf)); if (ret == -1) { perror("bind"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } printf("bind() succeeds.\n"); exit(EXIT_SUCCESS); } % gcc -Wall tst.c % ./a.out sizeof(sun_path): 104 NAME_MAX: 255 PATH_MAX: 1024 socket pathname length: 4108 bind() succeeds. % ls s*|wc 1 1 105 % ls s*|od -c -Ad 0000000 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s * 0000096 s s s s s s s s \n 0000105 % dpkg -l|egrep '\<kfreebsd-image|libc-' ii kfreebsd-image-9-amd64 9.0-10 kfreebsd-amd64 kernel of FreeBSD 9 image (meta-package) ii kfreebsd-image-9.0-2-amd64 9.0-10 kfreebsd-amd64 kernel of FreeBSD 9.0 image ii libc-bin 2.13-38 kfreebsd-amd64 Embedded GNU C Library: Binaries ii libc-dev-bin 2.13-38 kfreebsd-amd64 Embedded GNU C Library: Development binaries Note that it is not clear that bind() should be failed or not for pathnames longer than sizeof(sun_path) but shorter than NAME_MAX. I feel it should also be failed or succeeds with a socket file with given length. The truncation is very unintuitive. -- Tanaka Akira
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Version: 9.2-2+rm Dear submitter, as the package kfreebsd-9 has just been removed from the Debian archive unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports. We are sorry that we couldn't deal with your issue properly. For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/765606 The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/. This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [email protected]. Debian distribution maintenance software pp. Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)
--- End Message ---
