You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Here is a bug report in order to think about types' check.
Going through the code, there are many places where size_t / ssize_t / off_t / int... are wrongly used and may lead to some overflows...
Some implicit and explicit casts between size_t / ssize_t / int which are also sometimes wrongly done, leading to some limits (even if they are high) which could be overflowed.
For example, read and write operations deal with as much as dataLen (size_t), and return ssize_t, which does not seem to be absolutely correct.
Another example where an int is used to go through the number of blocks (should be an off_t) : https://github.com/vgough/encfs/blob/v1.9.2/encfs/encfsctl.cpp#L388
Here is a bug report in order to think about types' check.
Going through the code, there are many places where size_t / ssize_t / off_t / int... are wrongly used and may lead to some overflows...
Some implicit and explicit casts between size_t / ssize_t / int which are also sometimes wrongly done, leading to some limits (even if they are high) which could be overflowed.
For example, read and write operations deal with as much as dataLen (size_t), and return ssize_t, which does not seem to be absolutely correct.
Another example where an int is used to go through the number of blocks (should be an off_t) :
https://github.com/vgough/encfs/blob/v1.9.2/encfs/encfsctl.cpp#L388
This is a fiddly check to do then.
As indicated in #446, I think we should keep :
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: