On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 11:59:46AM +0100, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > Steve French wrote: > > You are correct that the CIFS code calls SendReceive in cases in which > > the buffer may be too small to fit a large SMB response, and that > > should be fixed (e.g. to avoid possible overflows due to a server > > bug), None of the eight cases (SMB TreeDisconnect, SMB uLogoff, SMB > > Close, SMB FindClose etc.) in which a small buffer is passed in to > > SendReceive return more than a few dozen bytes (and they are fixed > > size responses), but I agree that we have to be safe (and we have seen > > at least one server corrupt the bcc in the ulogoffX response and > > another on the NTCreateX response) so it would be good to fix. > > > Well, mounting shares from untrusted server is quite uncommon, still > buffer overrun shall be considered a serious issue, imho.
Also, a compromised machine on the same network could forge the malicious reply in some cases, right? --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
