On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 00:17, Jim Meyering <[email protected]> wrote: > "Matthew S. Harris" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Here's my one remaining fix. Yes, I've been sitting on this one since >> April 2007 too. Hopefully it's clear why this one is important. > > Thanks! > I don't want to block on test cases, > but it'd sure make it easier to take a patch that > comes with a small test case to exercise/demonstrate the fix. > > For example, if you can construct a tiny image, > describe how to perturb it, and give a parted > command that misbehaves as a result, yet that works > with your patch, that'd be great.
I totally appreciate why you're asking, but I'm afraid that I just don't have any more time to give to the Parted project. I was sitting on this fix for 20 months, so realistically you're not going to get the test cases you want from me. > Does something already ensure that SizeOfPartitionEntry is sane? > i.e., what if the on-disk value is invalid? > Maybe add a sanity check, if there isn't one already. That's a good idea; I don't remember there being a sanity check. >> + ptes = ped_malloc (ptes_sectors * disk->dev->sector_size); > > Before doing the malloc, ensure that the product does not overflow, > e.g., > > if (xalloc_oversized (ptes_sectors, disk->dev->sector_size) > goto ...; That's a good idea too. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. Matthew _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
