Hide Forgot
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #696263 +++ abrt version: 1.1.17 architecture: x86_64 Attached file: backtrace, 18896 bytes cmdline: readpst -D Outlook.pst component: libpst Attached file: coredump, 15335424 bytes crash_function: pst_base64_encode_multiple executable: /usr/bin/readpst kernel: 2.6.35.12-88.fc14.x86_64 package: libpst-0.6.49-1.fc14.1 rating: 4 reason: Process /usr/bin/readpst was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) release: Fedora release 14 (Laughlin) time: 1302717127 uid: 500 How to reproduce ----- 1. Attempt to extract the PST file to mbox with readpst 2. Crash reported and readpst hangs. 3. --- Additional comment from justin on 2011-04-13 17:56:23 GMT --- Created attachment 491842 [details] File: backtrace --- Additional comment from ppisar on 2011-04-14 16:22:16 GMT --- The crash was here: char *pst_base64_encode_multiple(void *data, size_t size, int *line_count) { char *output; char *ou; unsigned char *p = (unsigned char *)data; unsigned char *dte = p + size; if (data == NULL || size == 0) return NULL; ou = output = (char *)malloc(size / 3 * 4 + (size / 57) + 6); if (!output) return NULL; while((dte-p) >= 3) { unsigned char x = p[0]; → unsigned char y = p[1]; unsigned char z = p[2]; base64_append(&ou, line_count, base64_code_chars[ x >> 2 ]); base64_append(&ou, line_count, base64_code_chars[ ((x & 0x03) << 4) | (y >> 4) ]); base64_append(&ou, line_count, base64_code_chars[ ((y & 0x0F) << 2) | (z >> 6) ]); base64_append(&ou, line_count, base64_code_chars[ z & 0x3F ]); p+=3; }; [...] while dereferencing p[1]. The reported `size' (1609013) of `data' array does not match allocated memory and causes segmentation fault. Because p[0] is '\0' I guess the size has been determined as end of string without respecting the input is binary stream. Unfortunately the size (attach->data.size) is computed somewhere else and the stack dump does not provide enough details to find the bug. [...] --- Additional comment from ppisar on 2011-04-19 12:19:12 GMT --- There is lot of: ==13827== Invalid read of size 1 ==13827== at 0x4C3D516: pst_base64_encode_multiple (libstrfunc.c:50) ==13827== by 0x4C3D407: pst_base64_encode (libstrfunc.c:24) ==13827== by 0x4C0E97B: pst_attach_to_file_base64 (libpst.c:606) ==13827== by 0x405375: write_inline_attachment (readpst.c:1068) ==13827== by 0x4073F6: write_normal_email (readpst.c:1640) ==13827== by 0x402C6D: process (readpst.c:322) ==13827== by 0x402920: process (readpst.c:263) ==13827== by 0x4038DE: main (readpst.c:597) ==13827== Address 0x877c256 is 0 bytes after a block of size 9,590 alloc'd ==13827== at 0x4A05E46: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195) ==13827== by 0x4A05EC0: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:476) ==13827== by 0x4C20661: pst_process (libpst.c:2590) ==13827== by 0x4C112AD: pst_parse_item (libpst.c:1302) ==13827== by 0x402787: process (readpst.c:234) ==13827== by 0x402920: process (readpst.c:263) ==13827== by 0x4038DE: main (readpst.c:597) always in pst_base64_encode_multiple() but different lines. Fortunately 17 places only: ==13827== ERROR SUMMARY: 437490 errors from 17 contexts (suppressed: 6 from 6) (The line numbers correspond to hg tip of libpst). [...] --- Additional comment from updates on 2011-04-24 01:49:42 GMT --- Package libpst-0.6.51-1.fc15: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing libpst-0.6.51-1.fc15' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libpst-0.6.51-1.fc15 then log in and leave karma (feedback). ----- This issue has been fixed in upstream 0.6.51 version.
Created attachment 494878 [details] Fix back-ported from 0.6.51 This is back-ported patch that should fix this problem. Please note there is no public test case.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you would like it considered as an exception in the current release, please ask your support representative.