[PATCH] cpukit/mghttpd/mongoose: Fix format truncation warning

[Gedare Bloom]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 7:15 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
>
> On 17/9/20 9:50 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 6:43 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org
> > <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 16/9/20 11:42 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >     > snprintf() is a safe method and I strongly disagree with the blanket
> >     replacement
> >     > of many safe methods with memcpy().
> >     >
> >     > Based on what POSIX profiles snprintf() is included in and the safety and
> >     > security requirements those profiles are designed to meet, snprintf() is
> >     > supported by RTOSes that can meet DO-178 Level A.
> >     >
> >     > If the POSIX method being reviewed is in the FACE Safety Base or Safety
> >     Extended
> >     > profile, then it is OK to use and has been used in flight qualified
> >     > applications. And that is a general statement meaning running on any of a
> >     > variety of RTOSes. If the usage is incorrect, let's fix it but blanket
> >     changing
> >     > them is wrong.
> >
> >     This is really good information, thank you.
> >
> > No problem. That doesn't mean you can't do something stupid with it but
> > sprintf() would be discouraged and isn't in those profiles as I recall.
> >
> >     I see EPICS is reporting similar issues at the moment and looking to work around
> >     them.
> >
> > And no one is questioning why? What's the risk?
> >
> >     Is there a history of why this has been added to compilers as a warning?
> >
> > I have no idea..snprintf has a length and avoids overwrites.
> >
> > I would suggest that we find a safety or security coding standard that warns
> > about whatever methods this catches.
> >
> > Personally replacing snprintf and strong operations with memmove is semantically
> > wrong.
>
> I found this....
>
> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2018/05/24/detecting-string-truncation-with-gcc-8/
>
> The "Handling Truncation When It Occurs" section in the blog post is something
> worth considering. It seems the return value of call should be checked. That
> seems reasonable.
>

Nice. *printf also suffer from other security-relevant vulnerabilities
such as the format-string attack:
https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Format_string_attack

This means replacing their use with alternatives can be generally more secure.

> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel