iirc the reason why i changed it to unsigned was that actually the zend engine treated it as unsigned everywhere but in that particular struct. i also remember that i discussed that with andi and that he agreed to change this in the ze2 cvs module and that the extensions should be *fixed*. i agree that it doesn't make any sense to mix types. changing it to uint means to fix all the extensions, changing it to int means to fix the engine (and not just to revert my patch).
harald. > > I might be misunderstanding the problem and I didn't have time to read the > > phrack article, but doesn't this mean that leaving it unsigned is better? > > It wouldn't pass the length check and thus, memcpy() wouldn't convert a > > negative number to something huge. > > The problem is that every single line of existing PHP > extensions, both public and non-public, would need to be > audited, if we were to switch the type, because 100% of the > current code misinterpretes data from the ZE2 API right now. > > Changing the API does not solve the existing problem, it > merely adds to it. > > For example, you can add a single central check to the engine > today which checks string lengths to be at least 0. If the > length field was changed to an unsigned type permanently, > such a check would be impossible to implement in a portable > way, because C does not define how a negative number will > appear when cast to an unsigned type. > > - Sascha -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
