Re: [xml] Why does libxml2 limit port numbers to 999,999,999?

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 06:32:18PM +0200, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
On Oct 17, 2020, at 12:24 , Richard W.M. Jones via xml <xml gnome org> wrote:
It seems like libxml2 chose to do this for convenience rather than

Yes, this is an arbitrary limit introduced to avoid integer overflow.
I think it should accept port numbers at least up to
signed int (the type used to store port numbers), and give an error if
the port number overflows.

This is fixed now:

Oh that's great thanks.  Can confirm it works for me (up to INT_MAX).

Also could the uri->port field be changed to unsigned int without
breaking ABI?

It’s a public struct member, so strictly speaking, no. But the risk
to break stuff seems low.

This would allow us to go to 2^32-1 which is the full range of
port numbers for AF_VSOCK.

** Stefano ** Do you think this is worth it for the vsock protocol?
I'm not sure how often huge port numbers are used - I only hit this
bug because I was choosing random port numbers in a test case.


Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat
Read my programming and virtualization blog:
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines.  Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]