SOURCES: cvs-printf-n.patch (NEW) - fix *** %n in writable segment detected...

[arekm]

Author: arekm                        Date: Tue Feb 10 19:40:49 2009 GMT
Module: SOURCES                       Tag: HEAD
---- Log message:
- fix *** %n in writable segment detected ***

---- Files affected:
SOURCES:
   cvs-printf-n.patch (NONE -> 1.1)  (NEW)

---- Diffs:

================================================================
Index: SOURCES/cvs-printf-n.patch
diff -u /dev/null SOURCES/cvs-printf-n.patch:1.1
--- /dev/null	Tue Feb 10 20:40:49 2009
+++ SOURCES/cvs-printf-n.patch	Tue Feb 10 20:40:43 2009
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+--- cvs-1.12.13/lib/vasnprintf.c	2005-05-23 19:44:33.000000000 +0200
++++ cvs-1.12.13/lib/vasnprintf.c	2009-02-10 20:38:47.947197650 +0100
+@@ -558,9 +558,21 @@
+ 		  }
+ 		*p = dp->conversion;
+ #if USE_SNPRINTF
+-		p[1] = '%';
+-		p[2] = 'n';
+-		p[3] = '\0';
++# if !(__GLIBC__ > 2 || (__GLIBC__ == 2 && __GLIBC_MINOR__ >= 3)) 
++		p[1] = '%'; 
++		p[2] = 'n'; 
++		p[3] = '\0'; 
++# else 
++		/* On glibc2 systems from glibc >= 2.3 - probably also older 
++		   ones - we know that snprintf's returns value conforms to 
++		   ISO C 99: the gl_SNPRINTF_DIRECTIVE_N test passes. 
++		   Therefore we can avoid using %n in this situation. 
++		   On glibc2 systems from 2004-10-18 or newer, the use of %n 
++		   in format strings in writable memory may crash the program 
++		   (if compiled with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2), so we should avoid it 
++		   in this situation.  */ 
++		p[1] = '\0'; 
++# endif
+ #else
+ 		p[1] = '\0';
+ #endif
================================================================