On 05/18/2011 07:25 AM, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> On 18.05.2011 16:15, Steven Dake wrote:
>> On 05/18/2011 06:22 AM, Jerome Flesch wrote:
>>> ---
>>> exec/coroipcs.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/exec/coroipcs.c b/exec/coroipcs.c
>>> index 4c18c10..a7bb67f 100644
>>> --- a/exec/coroipcs.c
>>> +++ b/exec/coroipcs.c
>>> @@ -1736,7 +1736,7 @@ int coroipcs_handler_dispatch (
>>> * the ipc connection
>>> */
>>> if (conn_info->service == SOCKET_SERVICE_INIT) {
>>> - conn_info->service = -1;
>>> + conn_info->service = 0;
>>> }
>>> } else
>>> if (revent& POLLIN) {
>>
>> This patch isn't correct. 0 is an actual service id. I'd recommend
>> making a define such as
>>
>> #define SOCKET_SERVICE_SECURITY_VIOLATION 0xffffffff and use that.
>>
>> I see why you have problems with this (the type is unsigned) and my gcc
>> is not complaining.
>>
> Sorry, I should have been more explicit in my commit message regarding
> why I did this patch:
>
> If you look in include/corosync/coroipc_ipc.h, the value of
> SOCKET_SERVICE_INIT is actually 0xFFFFFFFF, aka -1. So basically, the
> current security check has no effect and multiple configurations of the
> same IPC connection are still possible.
>
> However, you are right, I missed the fact that 0 is an actual service. I
> will redo this patch as you suggest with a:
> #define SOCKET_SERVICE_SECURITY_VIOLATION 0xFFFFFFFFE
>
>
yup I'm a dummy good catch :)
_______________________________________________
Openais mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
