Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] sideband: add defense against packets missing a band designator

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 07:35:42PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
>> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
>> 
>> While there is currently no instance of code producing this type of
>> packet, if the `demultiplex_sideband()` would receive a packet whose
>> payload is not only empty but even misses the band designator, it would
>> mistake it for a flush packet.
>> 
>> Let's defend against such a bug in the future.
>
> That seems reasonable, but I'm not sure if these ought to be BUG()s.
> Isn't it an indication that the other side sent us bogus input? That
> likely is a bug on the other end, but I think it should be a die(), just
> as we would produce for any other malformed protocol input.

Thanks for spotting.  I also think this was a good change, but at
this point in the code we found a problem in the data the other side
created (i.e. we diagnosed a bug on the other side), which is a
usual input error, so it should not be a BUG().  

Would this be something we can warn and ignore if the connection is
still active, I wonder, though.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux