[PATCH] cgit: use strtol_i instead of atoi
john at keeping.me.uk
Wed May 13 15:45:56 CEST 2015
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:41:24PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Anybody have any objections to this? In some cases it's slightly more
> > verbose, but otherwise, I can't see any downsides.
> It's worse if there is trailing data. Since there's nothing obvious we
> can do if the input is bad, I'm not sure how much we care (i.e. ignoring
> the return value from strtol_i is OK) but whereas atoi will parse a
> valid value followed by trailing garbage strtol_i will just fail.
> Worse than that, if it fails it leaves the result uninitialized, which
> doesn't matter in the cases where we just update a variable, but at
> least one part of this patch introduces a new variable that is not set
> if strtol_i fails.
Oops... I didn't double-check the patch before sending, it does always
initialize the variables first so the only worry is trailing garbage.
Of course, if atoi leads to SQL injection, what makes strtol safe? The
test seems fundamentally useless; AFAICT the whole point is that if I
parse some user input and use without validating it then I can end up
doing something like:
int num_items = <user input>;
items = malloc(num_items * sizeof(*items));
leading to integer overflow. But the mechanism used to convert the user
input from a string to an integer is completely irrelevant.
More information about the CGit