Stefan Fuhrmann <stef...@apache.org> writes:

> Within libsvn_repos get_log functionality, pass the list of wanted revprops
> around as an array of svn_string_t* instead of const char*.  The added length
> info allows for more effient functions to be used.  Do that.

[...]

> -              char *name = APR_ARRAY_IDX(revprops, i, char *);
> -              svn_string_t *value = svn_hash_gets(r_props, name);
> -              if (censor_revprops
> -                  && !(strcmp(name, SVN_PROP_REVISION_AUTHOR) == 0
> -                       || strcmp(name, SVN_PROP_REVISION_DATE) == 0))
> -                /* ... but we can only return author/date. */
> -                continue;

[...]

> +                const svn_string_t *name
> +                  = APR_ARRAY_IDX(revprops, i, const svn_string_t *);
> +                svn_string_t *value
> +                  = apr_hash_get(r_props, name->data, name->len);
> +                if (censor_revprops
> +                    && !(strncmp(name->data, SVN_PROP_REVISION_AUTHOR,
> +                                 name->len) == 0
> +                         || strncmp(name->data, SVN_PROP_REVISION_DATE,
> +                                    name->len) == 0))
> +                  /* ... but we can only return author/date. */
> +                  continue;

As it turns out, this particular micro-optimization makes a data leak possible.
This is not a real security issue, as the change happened on trunk and didn't
become part of any released version.  Still, I think that we should fix this
prior to making 1.9 public.

I don't know what are the performance implications of using strncmp() in favor
of strcmp(), but the new check will not censor properties like 's', 'sv', ...
'svn:a', 'svn:d' and others.  This means that we might incorrectly leak these
revision properties for partially visible revisions.  Subversion 1.8.x only
outputs svn:date / svn:author when perfoming log requests for partially visible
revisions, and *all* other revision properties are censored out, but with this
changeset this is no longer true.

I committed a failing test in r1658406.  As for fixing this issue, I think that
we should entirely revert this changeset.

Thoughts?


Regards,
Evgeny Kotkov

Reply via email to