lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #27871, Calling tcp_abort() in recv...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #27871: Calling tcp_abort() in recv callback can lead to accessing unallocated memory
Submitter: | Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 30 Oct 2009 05:52:55 PM UTC | ||
Category: | TCP | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Faulty Behaviour | Status: | Fixed |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | goldsimon |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | 1.3.1 |
Jump to the original submission
Fri 29 Jan 2010 02:18:34 PM UTC, comment #11: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 29 Jan 2010 10:30:09 AM UTC, comment #10: Maybe something on the wiki? But doc/rawapi.txt is the main place, thanks.
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Fri 29 Jan 2010 10:16:21 AM UTC, comment #9: I've already updated doc/rawapi.txt. Is there any other place of API documentation I forgot? |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 29 Jan 2010 09:30:29 AM UTC, comment #8: Could you make sure the API documentation is updated to include this change? |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Thu 28 Jan 2010 12:41:54 PM UTC, comment #7: Sounds good to me. I like that it provides explicit feedback to the stack.
|
Jeff Barber <jeffbabar> |
Wed 27 Jan 2010 05:24:08 PM UTC, comment #6: Fixed by checking the return value of TCP_EVENT_xxx and not accessing the pcb pointer after that if err == ERR_ABRT.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Sun 22 Nov 2009 03:53:16 PM UTC, comment #5: I think a better change might be to disallow applications to call tcp_abort and instead process the return value of sent-, recv- and poll-callback functions to let the stack call tcp_abort when they return ERR_ABRT. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 20 Nov 2009 05:54:44 PM UTC, comment #4:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 02 Nov 2009 09:09:00 AM UTC, comment #3: I don't mind applications using the raw API being able to call tcp_abort() - the raw API is by design low level, so being able to do things that applications couldn't normally do is OK. However, documenting cases like this where it is not possible to use tcp_abort() is probably wise. i.e. I think this is best solved with documentation rather than changing the code. |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Sat 31 Oct 2009 12:32:25 AM UTC, comment #2: That's true. But with the current layout of the headers, it's kind of hard to separate between functions for applications and internally used functions. I.e. it's not always clear what counts as API and what doesn't. |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 30 Oct 2009 06:20:16 PM UTC, comment #1: Wouldn't it be better to simply deprecate use of tcp_abort from applications?
|
Jeff Barber <jeffbabar> |
Fri 30 Oct 2009 05:52:55 PM UTC, original submission:
This isn't new but has been in there for a while:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 3 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010-01-29 | goldsimon | Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |
2010-01-27 | goldsimon | Status | None | Fixed | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon |
Powered by Savane 3.13-02a9.
Corresponding source code
Updated the wiki, too.