Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 170776
hexadecimal integers in user options not accepted
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:07:21 EST
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #145997 +++
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040808
Description of problem:
There is a bug in parsing unsigned integers in (amongst other places) user
option. If I set the value of the option
to a hexadecimal number that happens to only contain
digits from 0-9, it
works (the client gets the option with the correct value). However, if I
hexadecimal digits from A-F (or a-f), it fails with "expecting
option ADSI.blah code 3 = unsigned integer 32;
option ADSI.blah 0x4100123; # works --> hex value
option ADSI.blah 0x4100ABC; # doesn't work; get expecting number
From reading the code it seems that get_token() is returning NUMBER_OR_NAME and
either the caller, get_token, or read_number isn't clever enough to realize that
(in this case) it is a NUMBER. I don't know the program flow well enough to
know the best location to patch the problem.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Set an option to a value of 0x1234. The parser completes as expected.
2. Set an option to a value of 0xabcd. The parser fails with "expecting number"
Actual Results: The parser fails with "expecting number".
Expected Results: Recognized that 0xabcd is a number and parsed correctly.
I verified this bug in dhcp-3.0.2rc3, and reported it on the dhcp mailing list,
but haven't received any indication that it will be fixed.
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2005-01-24 12:04 EST --
Thanks for reporting this bug - I'll develop a fix for Red Hat
FC4 + FC3 and submit it to the ISC ASAP .
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2005-01-24 13:02 EST --
Shortly after I submitted this to bugzilla, I got the following
response on the DHCP mailing list:
Steve; email@example.com is our bug tracking system. I saw you asked
about this on the mailing list, so I opened a ticket and placed you as
This bug looks pretty straightforward; a simple misunderstanding
between NUMBER and NUMBER_OR_NAME tokens. We should be able to fix
this in the next maintenance release.
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2005-01-24 14:49 EST --
This bug is now fixed in FC4/Rawhide (see attached patch) and I've
compiled it for FC2 and FC3 - you can download it from:
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2005-01-24 14:50 EST --
Created an attachment (id=110152)
patch to common/parse.c fixing hex integer user defined option parse
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2005-01-24 15:08 EST --
Correction to Comment #3:
should have been:
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2005-01-26 18:03 EST --
I am confused by the patch. It appears to only fix the problem that I
reported. However, a quick grep of the dhcp-3.0.2rc3 codebase shows 7
locations (3 in common/parse.c and 4 in server/confparse.c) that check
for NUMBER to the exclusion of NUMBER_OR_NAME. Likewise, checking for
NAME shows that common/parse.c always checks for NAME or
NUMBER_OR_NAME; however, one time in server/confparse.c it checks for
both and one time it only checks for NAME. It seems to me that these
other matches should be changed as well to fix analogous, latent bugs.
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2005-01-26 18:17 EST --
Yes, not every integer option may be specified in hex;
also we don't allow hex IP address octets.
The patch only allows user defined integer options to be
specified in hex.
The ISC DHCP developer recognizes the problem and is working
on a more general purpose fix for the next DHCP maintenance release;
when this comes out, it will be integrated with the Red Hat release.
Meanwhile, the patch does fix your specific problem.
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2005-01-26 18:23 EST --
Yes, I can confirm that my specific problem has been resolved.
fixed with dhcp-3.0.1-40_EL4+
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.