[PATCH:lbxproxy] Ensure lbxMaxServers stays within a reasonable range

[Kenneth Graunke]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:15:41 PM Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Avoid opportunity for integer overflow when allocating servers array.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith at oracle.com>
> ---
>  di/utils.c |    6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/di/utils.c b/di/utils.c
> index 7f7aa46..752d913 100644
> --- a/di/utils.c
> +++ b/di/utils.c
> @@ -392,7 +392,11 @@ proxyProcessArgument(int argc, char **argv, int i)
>      if (strcmp (argv[i], "-maxservers") == 0)
>      {
>  	if (++i < argc)
> +	{
>  	    lbxMaxServers = atoi(argv[i]);
> +	    if (lbxMaxServers <= 0 || lbxMaxServers > 1024)
> +		FatalError("out of range value for -maxservers");
> +	}
>  	else
>  	    ShowHelpAndExit (1);
>  	return 2;
> @@ -449,6 +453,8 @@ ProcessCommandLine(int argc, char *argv[])
>       */
>      if ((env = getenv ("LBXPROXY_MAXSERVERS")))
>  	lbxMaxServers = atoi (env);
> +    if (lbxMaxServers <= 0 || lbxMaxServers > 1024)
> +        FatalError("out of range value for LBXPROXY_MAXSERVERS");
>  
>      for ( i = 1; i < argc; i++ )
>      {
> 

Never heard of this software before now :)  I read up on it a bit;
it sounds like hardly anyone actually uses it.  I expect there are
basically 0 users who want to proxy connections to more than 1024 X
servers at a time.  If there are, they should be able to start more
than 1 instance of lbxproxy as a viable workaround.  Or they can
submit a patch.

So, for what it's worth,
Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20150421/3bc4f9bc/attachment.sig>