zyppe/anolis-glibc
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

update to glibc-2.28-225.el8

Browse source 
Signed-off-by: anolis-bot <sam.zyc@alibaba-inc.com>
This commit is contained in:
anolis-bot 2023-06-06 16:06:45 +08:00
parent 644b7d9a41
commit 63c96efbaa
176 changed files with 35958 additions and 17585 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

86
glibc-rh2122501-4.patch Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
commit 211a30a92b72a18ea4caa35ed503b70bc644923e
Author: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Date: Mon Nov 8 19:11:51 2021 +0000
Fix memmove call in vfprintf-internal.c:group_number
A recent GCC mainline change introduces errors of the form:
vfprintf-internal.c: In function 'group_number':
vfprintf-internal.c:2093:15: error: 'memmove' specified bound between 9223372036854775808 and 18446744073709551615 exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=]
2093 | memmove (w, s, (front_ptr -s) * sizeof (CHAR_T));
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a genuine bug in the glibc code: s > front_ptr is always true
at this point in the code, and the intent is clearly for the
subtraction to be the other way round. The other arguments to the
memmove call here also appear to be wrong; w and s point just *after*
the destination and source for copying the rest of the number, so the
size needs to be subtracted to get appropriate pointers for the
copying. Adjust the memmove call to conform to the apparent intent of
the code, so fixing the -Wstringop-overflow error.
Now, if the original code were ever executed, a buffer overrun would
result. However, I believe this code (introduced in commit
edc1686af0c0fc2eb535f1d38cdf63c1a5a03675, "vfprintf: Reuse work_buffer
in group_number", so in glibc 2.26) is unreachable in prior glibc
releases (so there is no need for a bug in Bugzilla, no need to
consider any backports unless someone wants to build older glibc
releases with GCC 12 and no possibility of this buffer overrun
resulting in a security issue).
work_buffer is 1000 bytes / 250 wide characters. This case is only
reachable if an initial part of the number, plus a grouped copy of the
rest of the number, fail to fit in that space; that is, if the grouped
number fails to fit in the space. In the wide character case,
grouping is always one wide character, so even with a locale (of which
there aren't any in glibc) grouping every digit, a number would need
to occupy at least 125 wide characters to overflow, and a 64-bit
integer occupies at most 23 characters in octal including a leading 0.
In the narrow character case, the multibyte encoding of the grouping
separator would need to be at least 42 bytes to overflow, again
supposing grouping every digit, but MB_LEN_MAX is 16. So even if we
admit the case of artificially constructed locales not shipped with
glibc, given that such a locale would need to use one of the character
sets supported by glibc, this code cannot be reached at present. (And
POSIX only actually specifies the ' flag for grouping for decimal
output, though glibc acts on it for other bases as well.)
With binary output (if you consider use of grouping there to be
valid), you'd need a 15-byte multibyte character for overflow; I don't
know if any supported character set has such a character (if, again,
we admit constructed locales using grouping every digit and a grouping
separator chosen to have a multibyte encoding as long as possible, as
well as accepting use of grouping with binary), but given that we have
this code at all (clearly it's not *correct*, or in accordance with
the principle of avoiding arbitrary limits, to skip grouping on
running out of internal space like that), I don't think it should need
any further changes for binary printf support to go in.
On the other hand, support for large sizes of _BitInt in printf (see
the N2858 proposal) *would* require something to be done about such
arbitrary limits (presumably using dynamic allocation in printf again,
for sufficiently large _BitInt arguments only - currently only
floating-point uses dynamic allocation, and, as previously discussed,
that could actually be replaced by bounded allocation given smarter
code).
Tested with build-many-glibcs.py for aarch64-linux-gnu (GCC mainline).
Also tested natively for x86_64.
(cherry picked from commit db6c4935fae6005d46af413b32aa92f4f6059dce)
diff --git a/stdio-common/vfprintf.c b/stdio-common/vfprintf.c
index 6b83ba91a12cdcd5..2d434ba45a67911e 100644
--- a/stdio-common/vfprintf.c
+++ b/stdio-common/vfprintf.c
@@ -2101,7 +2101,8 @@ group_number (CHAR_T *front_ptr, CHAR_T *w, CHAR_T *rear_ptr,
copy_rest:
/* No further grouping to be done. Copy the rest of the
number. */
- memmove (w, s, (front_ptr -s) * sizeof (CHAR_T));
+ w -= s - front_ptr;
+ memmove (w, front_ptr, (s - front_ptr) * sizeof (CHAR_T));
break;
}
else if (*grouping != '\0')