On 12/1/07, Blue Swirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/1/07, TeLeMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Blue Swirl-2 wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/28/07, TeLeMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> dyngen_code() can generate more than CODE_GEN_MAX_SIZE bytes,
> > >> code_gen_buffer
> > >> ca
On 12/1/07, TeLeMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Blue Swirl-2 wrote:
> >
> > On 11/28/07, TeLeMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> dyngen_code() can generate more than CODE_GEN_MAX_SIZE bytes,
> >> code_gen_buffer
> >> can be overflowed. I hope this security bug will be fixed soon.
> >
> >
Blue Swirl-2 wrote:
>
> On 11/28/07, TeLeMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> dyngen_code() can generate more than CODE_GEN_MAX_SIZE bytes,
>> code_gen_buffer
>> can be overflowed. I hope this security bug will be fixed soon.
>
> Thank you for the analysis. It's true that cpu_gen_code does not
On 11/28/07, TeLeMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> dyngen_code() can generate more than CODE_GEN_MAX_SIZE bytes, code_gen_buffer
> can be overflowed. I hope this security bug will be fixed soon.
Thank you for the analysis. It's true that cpu_gen_code does not pass
CODE_GEN_MAX_SIZE (65536) on to
dyngen_code() can generate more than CODE_GEN_MAX_SIZE bytes, code_gen_buffer
can be overflowed. I hope this security bug will be fixed soon.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-security-bug-code_gen_buffer-can-be-overflowed-tf4886083.html#a13985284
Sent from the QEMU - Dev m
