[#61171] Re: [ruby-changes:33145] normal:r45224 (trunk): gc.c: fix build for testing w/o RGenGC — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
(2014/03/01 16:15), normal wrote:
[#61243] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9425] [PATCH] st: use power-of-two sizes to avoid slow modulo ops — normalperson@...
Issue #9425 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#61359] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs — normalperson@...
Issue #9609 has been reported by Eric Wong.
(2014/03/07 19:09), normalperson@yhbt.net wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61424] [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I'm unsure about this. I _hate_ the extra branches this adds;
Hi Eric,
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
(2014/03/14 2:12), Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61452] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [Open] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#61496] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9638] [Open] [PATCH] limit IDs to 32-bits on 64-bit systems — normalperson@...
Issue #9638 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#61568] hash function for global method cache — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I came upon this because I noticed existing st numtable worked poorly
(2014/03/18 8:03), Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
what's the profit from using binary tree in place of hash?
Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com> wrote:
[#61687] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9606] Ocassional SIGSEGV inTestException#test_machine_stackoverflow on OpenBSD — normalperson@...
Issue #9606 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#61760] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[ruby-core:61615] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9659] crash in FIPS mode after unchecked algo->init_func failure
Issue #9659 has been updated by Jared Jennings.
Now I see that `rb_digest_hash_init_func_t` (source:ext/digest/digest.h@43668#L20) is a typedef for a pointer to a function returning void. This complicates the patch: the typedef must be changed so init functions return an int, and the init functions in each digest algorithm implementation included in the digest extension must be changed slightly, to return a 1 for success or a 0 for failure, as the OpenSSL implementations they imitate claim to do.
----------------------------------------
Bug #9659: crash in FIPS mode after unchecked algo->init_func failure
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9659#change-45885
* Author: Jared Jennings
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* Category: ext
* Target version: current: 2.2.0
* ruby -v: ruby 1.8.7 (2011-06-30 patchlevel 352) [x86_64-linux]
* Backport: 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
This is just like #4944, but in the `digest` extension instead of the `openssl` extension.
On my host, which is configured for FIPS 140-2 compliance (this is a U.S. Government security standard), OpenSSL refuses to perform an MD5 checksum. It indicates this refusal when the digest algorithm initialization function is called: this function returns a 0 indicating failure instead of a 1 indicating success. But it's just a bunch of arithmetic; how can it fail? So the return code is ignored. But if the initialization fails, and we go on trying to use the algorithm, the Ruby interpreter crashes:
~~~
$ OPENSSL_FORCE_FIPS_MODE= ruby -rdigest -e "puts Digest::MD5.hexdigest('hi')"
md5_dgst.c(78): OpenSSL internal error, assertion failed: Digest MD5 forbidden in FIPS mode!
Aborted (core dumped)
~~~
The digest extension, in the `rb_digest_base_alloc`, `rb_digest_base_reset`, and `rb_digest_base_finish` functions, is ignoring the return code of `algo->init_func`. If OpenSSL is present at build time, `algo->init_func` works out to be the `MD5_Init` function from OpenSSL. This function, according to its man page, returns a 1 for success or 0 for failure.
I see the problem under Ruby 1.8.7 as patched by Red Hat; I can't easily build the trunk on my system, but it looks like in r43668 the return value still isn't being checked in these three places:
* source:ext/digest/digest.c@43668#L551
* source:ext/digest/digest.c@43668#L589
* source:ext/digest/digest.c@43668#L627
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/