From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/13034 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Markus Wichmann Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Possible oversight in setvbuf() Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 16:40:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20180713144052.GA13099@voyager> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1531492745 9139 195.159.176.226 (13 Jul 2018 14:39:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 14:39:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-13050-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Jul 13 16:39:01 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fdzDp-0002If-Ms for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 16:39:01 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 9638 invoked by uid 550); 13 Jul 2018 14:41:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 9605 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2018 14:41:07 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:AA+m2eqUcwb0DYeSzR5u0ZdIAMncZb+xCQOZHZf1WGy2YAAzwhH UaSS2DB1A2p91hTxi7tTw/ads7szOrDBIGocUtDBFoujrpAdElbPCPVUMRI9P0d0tHIxSFJ 9/YnIzCs41Wena6yiEszXqzU95h8HyZ4V19Lli+FPGYsPKTSGMX6MiExvgCKEgZMW/WdU9L BlyJoBU2WoYt+kCT/IA0Q== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:uDSnEK3SbMs=:lAGnMteGKlI5pLYugNTRa1 OH3UvJP5aWKJEgciZCG+dQEl8gdEjN+A+Pvghgebh+7CsiXcIxThprnQfVllj/Ag6R458kA6N cwuFLXcAmb6ORDwlLb5FxjGAGdE4o1G0NnUc+By6kO3f65oSyf169Ue5/VwfWy5uz8kVzh71o oLU6AGVd12j55A37By+F/zNu9pp4QUSSgUdSUkPegFELgx/KecyEuBbNqzhJRUFBJNbcM739y aOPjv694/xgjWrj/MPiFiCztnAB+x1hNxRb/ps9HCjOnldI1dxMo69dlOiGrPBFwJQf917twT goVgIj8F6xhaeKZCzSkl14Oso2W9Blnm+kGhELpVoifioqJp/cAGC2EaUlDfa1a49rxlku/FF qfTz2zgxWLgUJZM1oHS228UceWND6Rlj4ATVZsQfKTbbkiRM64KJ/MXTeskv4IpOyo1OlW54o BNEIw64/IP8MRRPNJjloHC44X2DxvZGT+cdflTxHSmBi742Vg5aVZ8RdDnqQ0FFayZFM26oqu NFJqAui8lmIroUE1PlZTMT7J5rPVFEdAgXNHr98WTeT/HJd9rZplJCyd42/+H1ifGwXIO8td1 oT10IlWPaIQO/OHPIMQLS4TD3mGSzs8EFoIaBtaZOATR8vYE3V61ZKlsQFESXdb9L3lMnJ8kn V0rPrMNxp3lrvbpQb4GpFHTKfLyBntoIevU6S/4WhJAtTj92q0j8opGYXDO2WJ1TJ3gdMLmay BSl5WvuWwRR4laO/CQiEc9B8RHlCENKR06bhg/sxnX2WjNOkC1EDI3VbKj4= Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:13034 Archived-At: Hi all, ungetc() seems to depend on f->buf pointing UNGET bytes into a valid array. fdopen() will provide such a thing. However, setvbuf() will set f->buf to the very start of the user provided buffer. Bizarrely, UNGET is deducted from the buffer size, but not added to the pointer. Oversight or intentional? Ciao, Markus