From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Apr 20 08:44:04 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D17AB15603 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:44:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5777F1AB1 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:44:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u3K8i4KS027638 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:44:04 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 208808] Heap overflow in nlm system call Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:44:04 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: dfr@rabson.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:44:04 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D208808 dfr@rabson.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dfr@rabson.org --- Comment #4 from dfr@rabson.org --- (In reply to Sean Bruno from comment #3) I'm not sure if 256 is the right number either but it seems unlikely that a real server would have that many addresses. The patch is probably fine as-is although it would be nice if the error message also mentioned the limit on number of addresses. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=