diff options
| author | David Lamparter <equinox@opensourcerouting.org> | 2017-01-26 05:59:50 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | David Lamparter <equinox@opensourcerouting.org> | 2017-01-26 07:05:56 +0100 |
| commit | c30420200bf9e0a8c076da5348a0c538de87640c (patch) | |
| tree | 2a07bc7abcad50a7c9aa05a845a9b9859ca81520 /lib/graph.c | |
| parent | 5bf313994d01bc05f0fe90fdb69322812c399440 (diff) | |
lib: graph: fix vector_remove()
vector_remove would corrupt the data in the following sequence:
1. assume vector v = [a, b], active = 2
2. vector_unset(v, 0) => v = [NULL, b], active = 2
3. vector_remove(v, 1)
vector_remove calls vector_unset(v, 1), vector_unset notices index #0 is
also NULL and thus sets active to 0.
The equality test in vector_remove() now fails, leading it to decrement
v->active *again*, leading to an underflow that will likely crash the
daemon (and might even be exploitable).
This call sequence does not happen in existing code since vector_unset()
is not used on graph from/to lists. Nonetheless this is a buried land
mine in the code at best.
Rewrite the function - while we're at it, there's no reason to move the
entire array around, just fill the hole with the last element.
Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <equinox@opensourcerouting.org>
Cc: Quentin Young <qlyoung@cumulusnetworks.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'lib/graph.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | lib/graph.c | 13 |
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/lib/graph.c b/lib/graph.c index 9ca0a3152c..0992059ef1 100644 --- a/lib/graph.c +++ b/lib/graph.c @@ -55,11 +55,16 @@ graph_new_node (struct graph *graph, void *data, void (*del) (void*)) static void vector_remove (vector v, unsigned int ix) { - vector_unset (v, ix); - if (ix == vector_active (v)) return; - for (; ix < vector_active (v) - 1; ix++) - v->index[ix] = v->index[ix+1]; + if (ix >= v->active) + return; + + /* v->active is guaranteed >= 1 because ix can't be lower than 0 + * and v->active is > ix. */ v->active--; + /* if ix == v->active--, we set the item to itself, then to NULL... + * still correct, no check neccessary. */ + v->index[ix] = v->index[v->active]; + v->index[v->active] = NULL; } void |
