Re: Off-by-one bug at unix_mkname ?

In article <[email protected]> (at Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:25:39 +0200 (MEST)), Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> says:

> 
> On Mar 28 2005 17:39, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> 
> >+		 *	This may look like an off by one error but it is
> >+		 *	a bit more subtle. 108 is the longest valid AF_UNIX
> >+		 *	path for a binding. sun_path[108] doesnt as such
> >+		 *	exist. However in kernel space we are guaranteed that
> >+		 *	it is a valid memory location in our kernel
> >+		 *	address buffer.
> >+		 */
> 
> Now, does 2.6. _still_ guarantee that 108 is a valid offset?

Yes, it does.

--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • Re: Off-by-one bug at unix_mkname ?
    • From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[email protected]>
  • Re: Off-by-one bug at unix_mkname ?
    • From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!.
• Next by Date: Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!.
• Previous by thread: Re: Off-by-one bug at unix_mkname ?
• Next by thread: Re: [Fastboot] /x86_64-machine_shutdown.patch breaks sysrq-b
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]