[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANO7a6z_sQ=MGwmb4zVjwVUij5hberLs=i2RRTD0dGKJnky+yA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:24:23 +0530
From: Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: scan-build results, part 1
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Dec, 2012, at 17:34 , Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 9:46 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>>> Another weird complaint is for MSCHAPv2. The pos pointer is set to non-null in line 429. How could it ever be a null dereference in line 433?
>>
>> I have received an "official" answer on this one. It is *not* a false
>> positive. "ciphertext" can be NULL and we haven't checked for it
>> before doing pointer arithmetic on line 429.
>> gwynne> From the analyzer's point of view, NULL acts like NaN; i.e.
>> "NULL + anything = NULL" in terms of pointer validity.
>>
>> Following patch makes this problem go away.
>>
>> diff --git a/src/MSCHAPv2_fmt_plug.c b/src/MSCHAPv2_fmt_plug.c
>> index d946036..b4c7fcf 100644
>> --- a/src/MSCHAPv2_fmt_plug.c
>> +++ b/src/MSCHAPv2_fmt_plug.c
>> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
>>
>> #include "sha.h"
>> #include <openssl/des.h>
>> +#include <assert.h>
>> ...
>
> Fair enough. But I think I recall Solar wants to avoid using assert() and in this case, we know (even if scan-build doesn't) that this function will never be called with ciphertext being null. So maybe we should just ignore it.
Sure, no problem.
> How come it doesn't complain about a hundred other formats' salt(), binary() and valid()? We never test against ciphertext being null, do we?
This is exactly what I couldn't figure out.
--
Cheers,
Dhiru
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
