Re: [PATCH] Do not truncate large UID/GID values on 32bit architectures

[Arthur de Jong <arthur [at] arthurdejong.org>]

On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 18:21 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On my system (a 64bit Linux machine), SIZEOF_UID_T is 4 but both
> SIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG_INT and SIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG_LONG_INT are 8.
> So none of the #if-s match.

Drats, I hoped that either of the two should always fit.

> The reason I originally used uint32 was that on my system, it is defined
> as:
>     #define __U32_TYPE              unsigned int
>     #define __UID_T_TYPE            __U32_TYPE
> 
> I would suggest that the equality check is changed to "<=" and perhaps 
> "unsigned int" is added to the list of data types.

I've added an unsigned int and a strtoui() (which is basically your
strtouint32()).

> So I think the best option is to either check for overflow based on the
> sizeof(uid_t) value or alternatively just check if the unsigned long
> overflowed, for example. The latter is less work, but prone to overflows
> in case ULONG_MAX would be bigger than (hypothetical) UID_MAX.

Since a strto....() function is now always used that matches the size of
uid_t the bounds checking should already be OK. Only if uid_t isn't of
size int, long or long long we have a problem.

-- 
-- arthur - arthur@arthurdejong.org - http://arthurdejong.org --

-- 
To unsubscribe send an email to
nss-pam-ldapd-users-unsubscribe@lists.arthurdejong.org or see
http://lists.arthurdejong.org/nss-pam-ldapd-users