[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.2406131450410.32521@herc.mirbsd.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:20:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@...bsd.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
cc: erny hombre <hombre67@....at>
Subject: Re: possible bug in syslog
Rich Felker dixit:
>If I follow correctly, the bug here is that the nonstandard
>functionality of passing a facility to syslog()
At least on BSD, it is expected to work:
| The facility parameter encodes a default facility to be assigned to all
| messages that do not have an explicit facility encoded:
Although it also has…
| #define LOG_MAKEPRI(fac, pri) (((fac) << 3) | (pri))
… the uses are…
| bin/date/date.c: syslog(LOG_AUTH | LOG_NOTICE, "date set by %s", pc);
… and…
| #define LOG_USER (1<<3) /* random user-level messages */
… so I guess it suffers from the same bug.
$ ./a.out
exampleprog[11414]: LOG_DAEMON | LOG_NOTICE
exampleprog[11414]: LOG_LOCAL7 | LOG_NOTICE
exampleprog[11414]: LOG_MAKEPRI(LOG_DAEMON, LOG_NOTICE)
exampleprog[11414]: syslog: unknown facility/priority: 5c5
exampleprog[11414]: LOG_MAKEPRI(LOG_LOCAL7, LOG_NOTICE)
The only users of LOG_MAKEPRI in the entire tree are Sys::Syslog::Syslog
(Perl XS) though and…
sys/sys/syslog.h:#define INTERNAL_MARK LOG_MAKEPRI(LOG_NFACILITIES, 0)
sys/sys/syslog.h: { "mark", INTERNAL_MARK }, /* INTERNAL */
… so this is probably fixed more easily than when having
to keep ABI. LOG_FAC has one more user than Perl, but…
/*
* Don't allow users to log kernel messages.
* NOTE: since LOG_KERN == 0 this will also match
* messages with no facility specified.
*/
if (LOG_FAC(pri) == LOG_KERN)
pri = LOG_USER | LOG_PRI(pri);
… this is also very nicely written to not hit this bug.
LOG_FACMASK must of course match the next power-of-two-minus-one
for (LOG_NFACILITIES << 3)… so, yes, 0xF8 is correct for BSD as well.
What do you think about…
#define LOG_MAKEPRI(fac,pri) (((fac) & LOG_FACMASK) | ((pri) & LOG_PRIMASK))
… however?
With the three changes applied, the test program is happy:
$ ./a.out
exampleprog[6837]: LOG_DAEMON | LOG_NOTICE
exampleprog[6837]: LOG_LOCAL7 | LOG_NOTICE
exampleprog[6837]: LOG_MAKEPRI(LOG_DAEMON, LOG_NOTICE)
exampleprog[6837]: LOG_MAKEPRI(LOG_LOCAL7, LOG_NOTICE)
>Another option would be to leave the macro definitions alone (i.e.
>preserve existing ABI) and make syslog accept the packing we
>inadvertently defined with the 3 empty bits between priority and
>facility.
This would not bring the MAKEPRI and the “or” method into
congruence, and, assuming you actually test that the three
bits are 0 and at least one higher isn’t, it would still mean
LOG_UUCP/LOG_USER, LOG_LOCAL0/LOG_MAIL, LOG_NFACILITIES/LOG_DAEMON
(strictly speaking) confusion.
>I'm not sure what we should do since this functionality has never
>worked right, and since it's fairly obscure and nonstandard. Let's
>wait a bit and see if anyone else has opinions on which way to fix it.
Did musl crib the logging framework from a BSD?
In that case I’d go with the suggested fix, as LOG_MAKEPRI probably
is more rarely used. I was just going to do a codesearch on Debian
when I saw the new reply (not in the thread) that…
>Here (https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2018edition/functions/syslog.html)
>I found this: Values of the priority argument are formed by OR'ing
>together a severity-level value and an optional facility value.
… indicates that, yes, “or”ing must be possible.
I’ll commit the fix to MirBSD now. Thanks erny for raising.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
> Hi, does anyone sell openbsd stickers by themselves and not packaged
> with other products?
No, the only way I've seen them sold is for $40 with a free OpenBSD CD.
-- Haroon Khalid and Steve Shockley in gmane.os.openbsd.misc
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.
