Hi Mark, On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:53:48PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:44:05AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > This is nice, thanks. > > I have one question about the patch: > > > > [...] > > > --- a/src/elflint.c > > > +++ b/src/elflint.c > > > @@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ section [%2d] '%s': XINDEX for zeroth entry not > > > zero\n"), > > > continue; > > > } > > > > > > - const char *name = NULL; > > > + const char *name = "<invalid>"; > > > > This variable is used in some checks, for example, it's being passed > > to ebl_check_special_symbol. I'd like to make sure this change > > doesn't have any unintended consequences. > > Good question. I assumed it was ok, but double checked. It is used by > ebl_check_special_symbol and various strcmps. The strcmps would > actually have crashed if the name was NULL (all backends that > implement check_special_symbol did handle NULL first before calling > strcmp). Since "<invalid>" isn't a valid symbol name (the '<' and '>' > are not normally used) it is fine in all places that use name to check > against a valid symbol name.
So this change is also a fix of potential null dereferences. Looks good, thanks for double checking. -- ldv
