[Top][All Lists]

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

[debbugs-tracker] bug#26690: closed (Crash with --ignore-matching-lines)

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#26690: closed (Crash with --ignore-matching-lines)
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 03:13:02 +0000

Your message dated Tue, 2 May 2017 20:12:25 -0700
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: Crash with --ignore-matching-lines
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #26690,
regarding Crash with --ignore-matching-lines
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

26690: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=26690
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Crash with --ignore-matching-lines Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:25:34 +0000
Dear all,

We found a null pointer dereference resulting in a segmentation fault for 
Diffutils. We think, it is an incorrect use of GLIBC but it can be easily 
addressed in both Diffutils and GLIBC. So we’ll make another bug report 
upstream. Specifically, The patch can be in GLIBC (introducing a simple null 
pointer check) or in Diffutils (preventing the NullDeref altogether). Below is 
a more detailed analysis.

This bug was found with AFLGo, a directed version of AFL/AFLFast. Thanks also 
to Van-Thuan Pham.

How to reproduce:
$ diff -Ia -I\\ <(printf "") <(echo a)
diff: \: Trailing backslash
diff: stack overflow

ASAN says:
==74668==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address 0x0000000000d8 (pc 
0x7f0670589bad bp 0x000000000000 sp 0x7ffefbed15b0 T0)
    #0 0x7f0670589bac in re_search_stub 
    #1 0x7f067058a527 in re_search 
    #2 0x555bfc in analyze_hunk 
    #3 0x4f91dd in diff_2_files 
    #4 0x528971 in compare_files 
    #5 0x51882c in main 
    #6 0x7f06704c4f44 in __libc_start_main 
    #7 0x41bac5 in _start 

AddressSanitizer can not provide additional info.
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: SEGV 
/build/eglibc-MjiXCM/eglibc-2.19/posix/regexec.c:414 in re_search_stub

This is our analysis:
For the diff-tool the argument -I<regexp> specifies the changed lines to 
exclude. For each such argument, the function add_regexp in diff.c is called. 
This function uses re_compile_pattern to successfully compile the first 
pattern. However, it fails to compile the second pattern, giving the error 
“Trailing backslash”. In both cases, the function uses the re_pattern_buffer 
*ignore_regexp. However, the failed compilation corrupts *ignore_regexp, 
setting ignore_regexp->buffer=0x0 and ignore_regexp->allocated=0. Later, in 
function summarize_regexp_list, it is established that at least one pattern was 
successfully compiled and ignore_regexp->fastmap is set, indicating that 
re_search is being called in utils.c:1501. Unfortunately, it is being called on 
the corrupted ignore_regexp where ignore_regexp->buf = 0x0. GLIBC does not 
check for a null-pointer when derefencing the buffer in regexec.c:413.

GDB says:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00007ffff7af5056 in re_search_stub (bufp=0x6228a0 <ignore_regexp>, 
address@hidden "a\n", length=1, address@hidden, range=1, stop=1, regs=0x0, 
ret_len=0) at regexec.c:413
413     in regexec.c
(gdb) p *bufp
$1 = {buffer = 0x0, allocated = 0, used = 224, syntax = 330310, fastmap = 
0x6271f0 "\330\036\335\367\377\177", translate = 0x0, re_nsub = 0, can_be_null 
= 0, regs_allocated = 0, fastmap_accurate = 0, no_sub = 0, not_bol = 0, not_eol 
= 0, newline_anchor = 1}
(gdb) bt
#0  0x00007ffff7af5056 in re_search_stub (bufp=0x6228a0 <ignore_regexp>, 
address@hidden "a\n", length=1, address@hidden, range=1, stop=1, regs=0x0, 
ret_len=0) at regexec.c:413
#1  0x00007ffff7af5a70 in __re_search (bufp=<optimized out>, address@hidden 
"a\n", length=<optimized out>, address@hidden, range=<optimized out>, 
address@hidden) at regexec.c:317
#2  0x000000000040ce1e in analyze_hunk (address@hidden, address@hidden, 
address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden) at util.c:1522
#3  0x000000000040507d in diff_2_files (address@hidden) at analyze.c:620
#4  0x00000000004071f7 in compare_files (address@hidden, name0=0x7fffffffe6ec 
"/dev/fd/63", name1=<optimized out>) at diff.c:1434
#5  0x000000000040387e in main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at 

==103798== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==103798== Copyright (C) 2002-2015, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==103798== Using Valgrind-3.11.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==103798== Command: src/diff -Ia -I\\ /dev/fd/63 /dev/fd/62
src/diff: \: Trailing backslash
==103798== Invalid read of size 4
==103798==    at 0x4F21056: re_search_stub (regexec.c:413)
==103798==    by 0x4F21A6F: re_search (regexec.c:317)
==103798==    by 0x40CE1D: analyze_hunk (util.c:1522)
==103798==    by 0x40507C: diff_2_files (analyze.c:620)
==103798==    by 0x4071F6: compare_files (diff.c:1434)
==103798==    by 0x40387D: main (diff.c:800)
==103798==  Address 0xd8 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
diff: stack overflow
==103798== HEAP SUMMARY:
==103798==     in use at exit: 4,970 bytes in 25 blocks
==103798==   total heap usage: 75 allocs, 50 frees, 28,030 bytes allocated
==103798== LEAK SUMMARY:
==103798==    definitely lost: 136 bytes in 5 blocks
==103798==    indirectly lost: 120 bytes in 6 blocks
==103798==      possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==103798==    still reachable: 4,714 bytes in 14 blocks
==103798==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==103798== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory
==103798== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==103798== ERROR SUMMARY: 1 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)

Best regards,
- Marcel

Marcel Böhme
Senior Research Fellow
TSUNAMi Security Research Centre
National University of Singapore


Important: This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you should not 
copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. 
Thank you.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: Crash with --ignore-matching-lines Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 20:12:25 -0700
I've just added a test and NEWS entry for that fix:


and also updated gnulib to the latest.

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]