Sergei Golubchik wrote:
Though your changes looked innocent - that is they most probably could
do no harm - I failed to understand when they'll do any good.
You replaced a set of checks for buffer overflow by some other set of
checks, which looked equivalent to the old one.
Hi,
it turns out that m
Sergei Golubchik wrote:
Ok, I took a look at this.
(btw, this was not a diff at all, but rather tarball of new and old
files. Having a real unified diff would make your changes MUCH easier to
understand).
Hi,
I did not want to force a particular diff format on the reader;
having the original and t
Hi!
On Mar 14, Maarten LITMAATH wrote:
> Sergei Golubchik wrote:
>
> >On Mar 12, Maarten LITMAATH wrote:
> >
> >>>Description:
> >>
> >>MySQL (e.g. version 4.0.10-gamma) does not check for buffer overflows
> >>when formatting error messages: the code just assumes that no message
> >>will ever be
Sergei Golubchik wrote:
On Mar 12, Maarten LITMAATH wrote:
Description:
MySQL (e.g. version 4.0.10-gamma) does not check for buffer overflows
when formatting error messages: the code just assumes that no message
will ever be larger than SC_MAXWIDTH (256), ERRMSGSIZE (SC_MAXWIDTH)
or MYSQL_ERRMSG_
Hi!
On Mar 12, Maarten LITMAATH wrote:
> >Description:
>
> MySQL (e.g. version 4.0.10-gamma) does not check for buffer overflows
> when formatting error messages: the code just assumes that no message
> will ever be larger than SC_MAXWIDTH (256), ERRMSGSIZE (SC_MAXWIDTH)
> or MYSQL_ERRMSG_SIZE (2
>Description:
MySQL (e.g. version 4.0.10-gamma) does not check for buffer overflows
when formatting error messages: the code just assumes that no message
will ever be larger than SC_MAXWIDTH (256), ERRMSGSIZE (SC_MAXWIDTH)
or MYSQL_ERRMSG_SIZE (200). This has been observed to lead to memory
corru
