hi, On Tuesday 03 July 2007 17:36:07 Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > Btw I canot imagine extension that may use this new PG(in_user_include) > > flag. > > In any case the issue is not very critical and this patch may wait for > > 5.3. > > If there really is no reason for an extension to use this, then I am ok > with it. I was thinking an extension might be defining a stream and > setting this.
i think the problematic scenario would be an extension that was previously
compiled with (and allocated/initialized an instance of) the old smaller
struct, which then passed said struct to a function from the newer core
version, which would expect that it was a the new (larger) struct, and
attempt to access memory outside the bound of the older struct.
but i'm not familiar enough with the code in question to know how this struct
used and passed around between extensions and the core.
sean
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
