Jonathan Nieder wrote: > --- i/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c > +++ w/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c > @@ -1703,11 +1703,18 @@ getsockaddr(namp, uaddr, len) [...] > sa->sa_len = len; > + datalen = len - offsetof(struct sockaddr, sa_data[0]); > + p = memchr(sa->sa_data, '\0', datalen); > + if (p) > + sa_len = p - (const char *)sa; > *namp = sa;
Ah, this is clearly broken since it applies to address types other than AF_UNIX. Guarding it with a test of sa_family would take care of that. More importantly, there is the question you raised of whether this should be done in userspace by libc instead. That would avoid upstream having to wonder, "why should we care what happens when someone using a BSD4.3-style bind() calls our BSD4.4-style kernel"? So it's tempting. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111016114047.ga23...@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net
