Slashdot Log In
33-Year-Old Unix Bug Fixed In OpenBSD
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jul 08, 2008 07:10 PM
from the yet-another-stack-overflow dept.
from the yet-another-stack-overflow dept.
Ste sends along the cheery little story of Otto Moerbeek, one of the OpenBSD developers, who recently found and fixed a 33-year-old buffer overflow bug in Yacc. "But if the stack is at maximum size, this will overflow if an entry on the stack is larger than the 16 bytes leeway my malloc allows. In the case of of C++ it is 24 bytes, so a SEGV occurred. Funny thing is that I traced this back to Sixth Edition UNIX, released in 1975."
Related Stories
[+]
IT: The 25-Year-Old BSD Bug 213 comments
sproketboy writes with news that a developer named Marc Balmer has recently fixed a bug in a bit of BSD code which is roughly 25 years old. In addition to the OSnews summary, you can read Balmer's comments and a technical description of the bug.
"This code will not work as expected when seeking to the second entry of a block where the first has been deleted: seekdir() calls readdir() which happily skips the first entry (it has inode set to zero), and advance to the second entry. When the user now calls readdir() to read the directory entry to which he just seekdir()ed, he does not get the second entry but the third. Much to my surprise I not only found this problem in all other BSDs or BSD derived systems like Mac OS X, but also in very old BSD versions. I first checked 4.4BSD Lite 2, and Otto confirmed it is also in 4.2BSD. The bug has been around for roughly 25 years or more."
Submission: 33 year old Unix bug fixed in OpenBSD by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Time to patch (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time to patch (Score:5, Funny)
But ./ is already taken over with yak. Seriously.
Parent
Re:Time to patch (Score:4, Funny)
Who cares about OpenBSD yacc? BSD is dying and Netcraft confirms it. The world has moved to GNU/Linux and Bison.
Parent
Re:Time to patch (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Time to patch (Score:4, Interesting)
Who cares? Like GCC versus TinyCC, being bloated means it can produce a more useful output. GNUware can be faulted for being heavy compared to traditional Unix tools, but the functionality and flexibility provided more than makes up for it.
Except for autotools. What the HELL were they thinking.
Parent
Re:Time to patch (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, but it would be written as a J2EE application. And the input wouldn't be .y, it'd be an XML document. And the output wouldn't be C, it'd be another XML, passing through a terabyte of XSLT. Then you pass this compiled parser XML, only a gigabyte in size, and your language file to a parser web service and it returns even more XML representing the parse tree.
Ahh, progress.
Parent
Re:Time to patch (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking of old bugs the guy who sits next to me at work hooked a 15yo mainfame bug a few months back. His stock comment whenever someone mentions it is: "Three more years and that one would have been old enough to vote!"
Parent
From back when (Score:5, Funny)
Unix beards were Unix stubble
bad omen (Score:5, Funny)
a 33 year old bug, plus a 25 year old bug (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/11/1339228)....
if we keep going backwards, will the world implode? or will daemons start spewing out of cracks in time and space?
Re:bad omen (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bad omen (Score:5, Funny)
It's just as possible people are wasting time fixing unimportant issues and ignoring more important ones.
We're talking programmers here, not politicians...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bad omen (Score:5, Funny)
Sure. Break malloc even worse to allow for backwards compatibility.
See "Windows 95".
Parent
Re:bad omen (Score:5, Funny)
a 33 year old bug, plus a 25 year old bug (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/11/1339228)....
if we keep going backwards, will the world implode?
Well since time began only 38.5 years ago we should find out the answer very soon!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In exactly 3.5 years , but I'm afraid the answer will disappoint you.
Re:bad omen (Score:4, Funny)
or will daemons start spewing out of cracks in time and space?
I finally figured out what the UAC were doing on the Mars colony... and it had nothing to do with those artifacts!
Thank god there's a division of Space Marines there...
Parent
Re:bad omen (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well since bugs before the epoch [wikipedia.org] were actual insects, judging by past precedent they'll get super powers... like wall-climbing ability or maybe spidey senses ??
Re:bad omen (Score:5, Funny)
The next bug will be in Boolean logic. After that, OpenBSD devs will start fixing structural engineering errors the Tower of Pisa.
Parent
Great! (Score:5, Interesting)
Any word on when they're going to fix the even older "Too many arguments" bug?
Sorry, but any modern system where a command like "ls a*" may or may not work, based exclusively on the number of files in the directory, is broken.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Burn the contents of the tar archive onto a CD. Mount the CD over the original directory structure. Use find(1)'s -fstype option to locate all the files that aren't on the CD, copy them to an empty disk image, then eject the CD. Remount the disk image over the original directory, delete all the files in the directory, then unmount the disk image. The files identical in name to those that were on the disk image (which are those that weren't on the CD) won't be deleted thanks to the peculiarities of mount(2).
You're welcome.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot "Er.". All Linux advice must contain "Er." at the beginning of the first sentence in order to signify the fact that the poster should have already known how to do this rather than asking this question.
Re:Great! (Score:4, Funny)
So Saturdays at your house must be a real blast, huh?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
tar tf archive.tar | while read FILENAME ; do
rm "$FILENAME"
done
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
While I'm sure you're trolling, I feel I should point out that, 1) I agree with you, and 2) this has apparently been fixed, on Linux:
http://agnimidhun.blogspot.com/2007/08/vi-editor-causes-brain-damage-ha-ha-ha.html [blogspot.com]
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Interesting)
If "ls a*" isn't working, it's because the shell is expanding a* into a command line >100kB in size. That's not the right way to do it.
Try "find -name 'a*'", or if you want ls -l style output, "find -name 'a*' -exec ls -l {} \;"
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
if you want ls -l style output, "find -name 'a*' -exec ls -l {} \;"
Yeah, because nothing endears you with the greybeards like racing through the process table as fast as possible. Use something more sane like:
which only spawns a new process every few thousand entries or so.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On modern systems, find -name 'a*' -exec ls -l {} +
Personally, however, I prefer find -name a\* -exec ls -l {} +
Also, you probably want to add a -type f before the -exec, unless you also want to list directories.
Either that, or make the command ls -ld to not list the contents of directories.
The Problem is *why* it's the wrong way to do it (Score:4, Interesting)
You're correct that's it's not the right way to do it. The problem is *why* it's not the right way to do it. It's not the right way to do it because the arg mechanism chokes on it due to arbitrary limits, and/or because your favorite shell chokes on it first, forcing you to use workarounds. Choking on arbitrary limits is a bad behaviour, leading to buggy results and occasional security holes. That's separate from the question of whether it's more efficient to feed a list of names to xargs or use ugly syntax with find.
Now, if you were running v7 on a PDP-11, there wasn't really enough memory around to do everything without arbitrary limits, so documenting them and raising error conditions when they get exceeded is excusable, and if you were running on a VAX 11/780 which had per-process memory limits around 6MB for some early operating systems, or small-model Xenix or Venix on a 286, it's similarly excusable to have some well-documented arbitrary limits. But certainly this stuff should have been fixed by around 1990.
Parent
In Defense of Limits (Score:3, Interesting)
Soft limits can actually mitigate bugs. If we limit processes by default to 1,024 file descriptors, and one of them hits the limit, that process probably has a bug, and would have brought the system to its knees had it continued to allocate file descriptors. Programs designed to use more descriptors could to increase the limit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Instead of "ls a*"? Seriously? Hopefully, someone will mod you funny.
Unix has extremely low overhead spawning processes. If you prelink and have a little cache this is plenty fast :P
Seriously though, this is a serious annoyance in the way Unix does business. Shell globbing is very convenient for programmers, but not so convenient for users in an awful lot of situations.
ERRATA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
It's both. The kernel is responsible for setting up the execution environment, and in the past it used a fixed 32 pages for the arguments. 32 pages on an ordinary PC is 128KiB, which is the old limit. The new limit is that any one argument can be up to 32 pages, and all the arguments taken together can be 0x7FFFFFFF bytes, which is ~2GiB.
Here's the diff: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b6a2fea39318e43fee84fa7b0b90d68bed92d2ba;hp=bdf4c48af20a3b0f01671799ace345e3d49576da [kernel.org]
After that, it was up to libc people to fix the globbing routines. Ulrich Drepper, taking some time off from his full-time job of being an asshole on mailing lists, managed to work this into glibc 2.8:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2008-04/msg00050.html [sourceware.org]
Parent
Was it really a bug back then? (Score:5, Interesting)
Was this a bug when it was originally written, or is it only because of recent developments that it could become exploitable? For instance, the summary mentions stack size. I could imagine that a system written in 1975 would be physically incapable of the process limits we use today, so maybe the program wasn't written to check for them.
Does your software ensure that it doesn't use more than an exabyte of memory? If it doesn't, would you really call it a bug?
Re:Was it really a bug back then? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you overflow a buffer then it's a bug, whether it is exploitable or not.
Parent
Re:Was it really a bug back then? (Score:5, Funny)
If you overflow a buffer then it's a bug, whether it is exploitable or not.
If you can overflow an exabyte-sized memory buffer, you deserve a fucking medal.
Parent
Re:Was it really a bug back then? (Score:5, Funny)
You'll get it when the buffer overflows. If you're running it on a system that processes a billion of those loops per second, that should be in a bit over 31 years. Scale accordingly for your processor and memory speed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you overflow a buffer then it's a bug, whether it is exploitable or not.
It is today, but my questions is whether it was even overflowable (is that a word?) when it was written. For example, suppose it was written for a 512KB machine and had buffers that could theoretically hold 16MB, then it wasn't really a bug. The OS itself was protecting the process by its inability to manage that much data, and it wouldn't have been considered buggy to not test for provably impossible conditions.
I'm not saying that's what happened, and maybe it really was just a dumb oversight. However,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, looking at it just as a bug, if the yacc script overflowed the buffer, yacc can
Hilarious! (Score:5, Funny)
Funny thing is that I traced this back to Sixth Edition UNIX, released in 1975
My sides are completely split! Invite this guy to more parties.
Yeah, it's probably you. (Score:3, Informative)
I bet you they're not talking about the system stack pointer. Remember, yacc is a parser generator; parsing algorithms always use some sort of stack data structure. So, the "stack pointer" in question is just a plain old pointer, pointing into a stack that yacc's generated code uses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the [] operator of an STL vector doesn't throw any exceptions, and will happily allow you to reference an index which is out of bounds.
That's not a bad thing, because it's more efficient when you already know that your index is in rage. But if you don't know that, you're better off using the at() function.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Best of all, even if you use assert() (or similar) for really explicit bounds checking, GCC will omit it from code paths where it's deemed to be unused. So if your accesses are being inlined (and if they're not, take a long hard look at your life) then the already-safe paths won't have the check overhead even in a debug build.
Yes, I've tested it. Yes, it's impressive.
Re:Yeah, it's probably you. (Score:5, Informative)
From the link you cited:
The code for yacc was certainly not originally written in c - c didn't exist at that time.
The "archaic behaviour" was never part of that standard - it was a mistake in early implementations while they were still "working out the details" of the language, well before K & R, as Ritchie says:
It wasn't an archaism in c - it was an archaism from b that was removed during the development of what became c. Small difference, and for all practical purposes, it gives the same result - previously-working code that wasn't reviewed as the language evolved towards a standard ended up with "implementation-dependent behaviour" - bugs ... The worst part is that the buggy code is syntactically correct, so no compiler warnings. Of course, if your conforming compiler doesn't give a warning, you assume that the code written with the experimental versions is still valid.
Parent
Re:Other Unixes (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. But OpenBSD fixed it, so they get credit for the fix. It's up to the maintainers of the other unix(ish) versions to implement the fix.
Parent
Re:You do realize.. (Score:4, Informative)
OpenBSD still uses GCC, version 3.3.5 on i386. I can't say which version is used on the other platforms.
You are talking of PCC, which is being worked on by some of the OpenBSD developers, but I think its a parallel project, see http://pcc.ludd.ltu.se/
for more information.
Jem Matzen talked of this too, see http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/369/
Parent
Re:You do realize.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:You do realize.. (Score:5, Informative)
yacc is not a compiler,
Excuse me?
Yet Another Compiler Compiler most definitely is a compiler.
Parent