Subject: Re: c-ares + IPv6 problem

Re: c-ares + IPv6 problem

From: David Stuart <dstuart_at_counterpath.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:54:02 -0400

Yes, OK, that's true. So I suppose in that case the addresses would be
ignored instead.

In that case I think the provided patch should be OK for submission/testing.

On 11-05-16 01:29 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, David Stuart wrote:
>
>> I think for a first pass I'm going to put this particular issue
>> aside.. but I could see how it might result in a buffer overflow
>> exploit so probably it should be fixed long term.
>
> It shouldn't result in an overflow if the code just checks the lengths
> and doesn't copy more than what fits in the target bufffer. Then the
> only thing we risk then is that some day in some unforseen situation it
> doesn't work as supposed.
>
> As for the exact limit, I think we should unify the code to use the same
> define all over.
>

-- 
David Stuart, CounterPath
Email: dstuart (at) counterpath (dot) com
Phone: (613) 254-8886 x2234  Web: http://www.counterpath.com/
Address: 310 - 350 Terry Fox Drive, Kanata Ontario, K2K 2P5
Received on 2011-05-16