Re: Possible bug in libsvn_ra_dav/commit.c? Any sprintf gurus please look.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 10:17:35PM -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, 2001-11-20 at 21:38, B. W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>...
> > 2. Shouldn't we allocate uuid_buf as [APR_UUID_FORMATTED_LENGTH +1] ?
>
> Yes. Look, ma, I've stack-smashed myself!

Yup. Looks like that was already noted and checked in.

> > 3. Why doesn't this blow up on other platforms? Why oh why oh why?
>
> My guess is that "other platforms" are just about all little-endian (in
> fact, just about all x86, and probably just about all compiled with gcc
> and the same bunch of compiler options), and you're getting lucky with
> your stack alignment such that the low-order byte of the address of
> uuid_buf happens to be zero. If it gets scribbled on by another zero
> byte, no apparent problemo.

Right.

> This looks like a misinterpretation of the meaning of
> APR_UUID_FORMATTED_LENGTH by whoever wrote create_activity.

"whoever" would be me. And the saddest part is that I wrote create_activity
*and* the UUID functions in APR. Heck, I wrote the comment in apr_uuid.h
about needing to allocate LENGTH+1 bytes for the result!

Damn, I suck.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org