|
Message-ID: <20211101151002.po6yfo7lgenrucet@jwilk.net> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 16:10:02 +0100 From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@...lk.net> To: <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: CVE-2021-42574: rustc 1.56.0 and bidirectional-override codepoints in source code >+ ('\u{202A}', ""), // The following unicode text flow control characters are inconsistently >+ ('\u{202B}', ""), // supported accross CLIs and can cause confusion due to the bytes on disk >+ ('\u{202D}', ""), // not corresponding to the visible source code, so we replace them always. >+ ('\u{202E}', ""), >+ ('\u{2066}', ""), >+ ('\u{2067}', ""), >+ ('\u{2068}', ""), >+ ('\u{202C}', ""), >+ ('\u{2069}', ""), Is it intentional that (here and elsewhere in the patch) they didn't include all the characters with the Bidi_Control property? $ grep -w Bidi_Control /usr/share/unicode/PropList.txt 061C ; Bidi_Control # Cf ARABIC LETTER MARK 200E..200F ; Bidi_Control # Cf [2] LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK..RIGHT-TO-LEFT MARK 202A..202E ; Bidi_Control # Cf [5] LEFT-TO-RIGHT EMBEDDING..RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE 2066..2069 ; Bidi_Control # Cf [4] LEFT-TO-RIGHT ISOLATE..POP DIRECTIONAL ISOLATE So U+061C, U+200E and U+200F appear to be missing from the patch. -- Jakub Wilk
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.