> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evgeny Kotkov [mailto:evgeny.kotkov_at_visualsvn.com]
> Sent: maandag 9 februari 2015 15:06
> To: Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1483570 -
> Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan2_at_apache.org> writes:
> > Within libsvn_repos get_log functionality, pass the list of wanted revprops
> > around as an array of svn_string_t* instead of const char*. The added length
> > info allows for more effient functions to be used. Do that.
> > - char *name = APR_ARRAY_IDX(revprops, i, char *);
> > - svn_string_t *value = svn_hash_gets(r_props, name);
> > - if (censor_revprops
> > - && !(strcmp(name, SVN_PROP_REVISION_AUTHOR) == 0
> > - || strcmp(name, SVN_PROP_REVISION_DATE) == 0))
> > - /* ... but we can only return author/date. */
> > - continue;
> > + const svn_string_t *name
> > + = APR_ARRAY_IDX(revprops, i, const svn_string_t *);
> > + svn_string_t *value
> > + = apr_hash_get(r_props, name->data, name->len);
> > + if (censor_revprops
> > + && !(strncmp(name->data, SVN_PROP_REVISION_AUTHOR,
> > + name->len) == 0
> > + || strncmp(name->data, SVN_PROP_REVISION_DATE,
> > + name->len) == 0))
> > + /* ... but we can only return author/date. */
> > + continue;
> As it turns out, this particular micro-optimization makes a data leak possible.
> This is not a real security issue, as the change happened on trunk and didn't
> become part of any released version. Still, I think that we should fix this
> prior to making 1.9 public.
> I don't know what are the performance implications of using strncmp() in favor
> of strcmp(), but the new check will not censor properties like 's', 'sv', ...
> 'svn:a', 'svn:d' and others. This means that we might incorrectly leak these
> revision properties for partially visible revisions. Subversion 1.8.x only
> outputs svn:date / svn:author when perfoming log requests for partially visible
> revisions, and *all* other revision properties are censored out, but with this
> changeset this is no longer true.
> I committed a failing test in r1658406. As for fixing this issue, I think that
> we should entirely revert this changeset.
Received on 2015-02-09 15:58:19 CET