-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CF_TraverseHistory string buffer handling #40
Comments
Imported comment by internal user on Tue Nov 16 14:24:57 2021 The report from IV&V is valid in that this overwrites some potentially desired parts of the human-readable output, but misses a potentially more significant issue in that the return value from |
Definitely need to fix this one, since it is a potential read beyond buffer bounds situation. |
- rename the function to better indicate what it does - do not discard the part of the output that has EID/TSN/CC information - do not pass the return value of snprintf directly to write(), use strlen() - simplify the code
- rename the function to better indicate what it does - do not discard the part of the output that has EID/TSN/CC information - do not pass the return value of snprintf directly to write(), use strlen() - simplify the code
- rename the function to better indicate what it does - do not discard the part of the output that has EID/TSN/CC information - do not pass the return value of snprintf directly to write(), use strlen() - simplify the code
Fix #40, update traverse history/write file
This issue was imported from the GSFC issue tracking system
Imported from: [GSFCCFS-1776] CF_TraverseHistory string buffer handling
Originally submitted by: Hickey, Joseph P. (GSFC-582.0)[VANTAGE SYSTEMS INC] on Tue Nov 16 14:22:27 2021
Original Description:
This issue was originally reported by IV&V, creating Jira issue to track its disposition and resolution.
Function CF_TraverseHistory() in cf_utils.c in the CF App source code, writes some text to the buffer 'linebuf' on line 70. This buffer, however, is overwritten on line 74 before it is written to the file descriptor on line 75. It is questionable whether this was the desired behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: