On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 01:29:48PM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> I think it would be better for decode() to just return -1 in this
> case.
The validation looks a bit like a magic number there, but this could
prevent issues of other decode()-users, too... So yeah, I think that
is worth it:
Index: syslogd.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/syslogd/syslogd.c,v
retrieving revision 1.131
diff -u -p -r1.131 syslogd.c
--- syslogd.c 26 Nov 2014 18:34:52 -0000 1.131
+++ syslogd.c 27 Nov 2014 20:46:47 -0000
@@ -1762,10 +1762,15 @@ int
decode(const char *name, const CODE *codetab)
{
const CODE *c;
+ int val;
char *p, buf[40];
- if (isdigit((unsigned char)*name))
- return (atoi(name));
+ if (isdigit((unsigned char)*name)) {
+ val = atoi(name);
+ if ((val >> 3) > LOG_NFACILITIES)
+ return (-1);
+ return (val);
+ }
for (p = buf; *name && p < &buf[sizeof(buf) - 1]; p++, name++) {
if (isupper((unsigned char)*name))
