Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 13:10:21 +0200 From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, marc.deslauriers@...onical.com CC: cve-assign@...re.org Subject: Re: Re: CVE Request: libX11: buffer overflow in MakeBigReq macro On 04/09/2015 09:09 AM, cve-assign@...re.org wrote: >> The MakeBigReq macro in libX11 contained a 4-byte buffer overflow: > >> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56508 > >> Fixed by the following commit in libX11 126.96.36.1991: > >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libX11/commit/?id=39547d600a13713e15429f49768e54c3173c828d > > (for the "#ifdef LONG64") >> - memmove(((char *)req) + 8, ((char *)req) + 4, _BRlen << 2); \ >> + memmove(((char *)req) + 8, ((char *)req) + 4, (_BRlen - 1) << 2); \ > > (for the "else") >> - memmove(((char *)req) + 8, ((char *)req) + 4, _BRlen << 2); \ >> + memmove(((char *)req) + 8, ((char *)req) + 4, (_BRlen - 1) << 2); \ > > Use CVE-2013-7439. Does this assignment cover application code which has to be recompiled because it included an expansion of broken macro? (The question is hypothetical. I could find copies of the header file, but not actual users of the macro.) -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
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.