On 03/17/2011 05:00 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:21:58PM +0000, Tim Gardner wrote:
On 03/11/2011 08:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
------------------
From: roel<[email protected]>
commit 3ec07aa9522e3d5e9d5ede7bef946756e623a0a0 upstream.
Index i was already used in the outer loop
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin<[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields<[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman<[email protected]>
---
fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c
@@ -1114,7 +1114,7 @@ nfsd4_decode_create_session(struct nfsd4
u32 dummy;
char *machine_name;
- int i;
+ int i, j;
int nr_secflavs;
READ_BUF(16);
@@ -1187,7 +1187,7 @@ nfsd4_decode_create_session(struct nfsd4
READ_BUF(4);
READ32(dummy);
READ_BUF(dummy * 4);
- for (i = 0; i< dummy; ++i)
+ for (j = 0; j< dummy; ++j)
READ32(dummy);
break;
case RPC_AUTH_GSS:
--
I agree that fixing the index in this loop is a good thing, but its
caused me to look at the result:
for (j = 0; j< dummy; ++j)
READ32(dummy);
It seems to me that this loop might never terminate if the original
buffer is maliciously constructed, e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, ... Is the data
in this buffer really that well vetted?
Agreed, the code's still clearly bogus. In fact, we can just delete
that loop entirely; I have a patch queued up to send to Linus soon.
(But go ahead and apply this anyway, and then you'll get the followup
patch when it lands.)
--b.
Will do. Thanks for the update.
rtg
--
Tim Gardner [email protected]
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
