[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#885617: stretch-pu: package libextractor/1:1.3-4



Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed

On Sun, 2018-02-25 at 19:18 +0100, Bertrand Marc wrote:
> Le 10/02/2018 à 11:13, Julien Cristau a écrit :
> > Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 17:11:02 +0100, Bertrand Marc wrote:
> > 
> > > diff -Nru libextractor-1.3/debian/patches/CVE-2017-15600.patch
> > > libextractor-1.3/debian/patches/CVE-2017-15600.patch
> > > --- libextractor-1.3/debian/patches/CVE-2017-15600.patch	1
> > > 970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ libextractor-1.3/debian/patches/CVE-2017-15600.patch	2
> > > 017-12-28 11:39:33.000000000 +0100
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> > > +From: Bertrand Marc <bmarc@debian.org>, Markus Koschany <apo@deb
> > > ian.org>
> > > +Subject: CVE-2017-15600
> > > +
> > > +Bug-Upstream: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libextractor
> > > /2017-10/msg00004.html
> > > +Origin: https://gnunet.org/git/libextractor.git/commit/?id=38e89
> > > 33539ee9d044057b18a971c2eae3c21aba7
> > > +--- a/src/plugins/nsf_extractor.c
> > > ++++ b/src/plugins/nsf_extractor.c
> > > +@@ -152,13 +152,17 @@
> > > +   char nsfversion[32];
> > > +   const struct header *head;
> > > +   void *data;
> > > ++  ssize_t ds;
> > > + 
> > > +-  if (sizeof (struct header) >
> > > +-      ec->read (ec->cls,
> > > +-		&data,
> > > +-		sizeof (struct header)))
> > > ++  ds = ec->read (ec->cls,
> > > ++                 &data,
> > > ++                 sizeof (struct header));
> > > ++  if ( (-1 == ds) ||
> > > ++       (sizeof (struct header) > ds) )
> > > +     return;
> > > +   head = data; 
> > > ++  if (NULL == head)
> > > ++    return 0; 
> > > + 
> > 
> > Curious how that works.  3 lines above is plain "return", and here
> > "return 0".  What's the type of that function and how did the
> > compiler
> > not flag this?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Julien
> 
> Indeed, sorry. The type of the function was changed from void (in
> wheezy) to int (in jessie). I updated the patch attached accordingly.
> 

Please go ahead.

Regards,

Adam


Reply to: