Bug 1027889

Summary:	adcli: avoid alloca in _adcli_ldap_have_in_mod
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7	Reporter:	Florian Weimer <fweimer>
Component:	adcli	Assignee:	Sumit Bose <sbose>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Stefan Dordevic <sdordevi>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	7.0	CC:	pkis, sbose, sdordevi
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	adcli-0.8.1-1.el7	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-11-04 06:21:38 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1027886

Description Florian Weimer 2013-11-07 13:14:44 UTC

In library/adldap.c:_adcli_ldap_have_in_mod(), there are two alloca calls:

	vals = alloca (sizeof (struct berval) * (count + 1));
	pvals = alloca (sizeof (struct berval *) * (count + 1));

Array allocation with alloca is problematic because that can lead to stack overflows.  In this particular case, it seems to be harmless because count is always 1 (if I traced the callers correctly), but it still serves as a bad example.

Comment 2 Stef Walter 2013-11-08 09:03:39 UTC

Makes sense, but as you noted is non-critical. Bumping to next release. Will fix upstream in the meantime.

Comment 4 Sumit Bose 2016-01-25 14:45:19 UTC

Fixed upstream, will be fixed by the rebase to 0.8.x.

Comment 6 Mike McCune 2016-03-28 23:32:32 UTC

This bug was accidentally moved from POST to MODIFIED via an error in automation, please see mmccune with any questions

Comment 11 errata-xmlrpc 2016-11-04 06:21:38 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016-2428.html