BUG/MEDIUM: checks: do not dereference a list as a tcpcheck struct
The method used to skip to next rule in the list is wrong, it assumes
that the list element starts at the same offset as the rule. It happens
to be true on most architectures since the list is the first element for
now but it's definitely wrong. Now the code doesn't crash anymore when
the struct list is moved anywhere else in the struct tcpcheck_rule.
This fix must be backported to 1.5.
diff --git a/src/checks.c b/src/checks.c
index 78f022f..9b09645 100644
--- a/src/checks.c
+++ b/src/checks.c
@@ -1476,7 +1476,10 @@
quickack = check->type == 0 || check->type == PR_O2_TCPCHK_CHK;
if (check->type == PR_O2_TCPCHK_CHK && !LIST_ISEMPTY(check->tcpcheck_rules)) {
- struct tcpcheck_rule *r = (struct tcpcheck_rule *) check->tcpcheck_rules->n;
+ struct tcpcheck_rule *r;
+
+ r = LIST_NEXT(check->tcpcheck_rules, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
+
/* if first step is a 'connect', then tcpcheck_main must run it */
if (r->action == TCPCHK_ACT_CONNECT) {
tcpcheck_main(conn);
@@ -2519,11 +2522,11 @@
/* have 'next' point to the next rule or NULL if we're on the
* last one, connect() needs this.
*/
- next = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)check->current_step->list.n;
+ next = LIST_NEXT(&check->current_step->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
/* bypass all comment rules */
while (&next->list != head && next->action == TCPCHK_ACT_COMMENT)
- next = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)next->list.n;
+ next = LIST_NEXT(&next->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
/* NULL if we're on the last rule */
if (&next->list == head)
@@ -2633,12 +2636,12 @@
}
/* allow next rule */
- check->current_step = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)check->current_step->list.n;
+ check->current_step = LIST_NEXT(&check->current_step->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
/* bypass all comment rules */
while (&check->current_step->list != head &&
check->current_step->action == TCPCHK_ACT_COMMENT)
- check->current_step = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)check->current_step->list.n;
+ check->current_step = LIST_NEXT(&check->current_step->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
if (&check->current_step->list == head)
break;
@@ -2695,12 +2698,12 @@
*check->bo->p = '\0'; /* to make gdb output easier to read */
/* go to next rule and try to send */
- check->current_step = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)check->current_step->list.n;
+ check->current_step = LIST_NEXT(&check->current_step->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
/* bypass all comment rules */
while (&check->current_step->list != head &&
check->current_step->action == TCPCHK_ACT_COMMENT)
- check->current_step = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)check->current_step->list.n;
+ check->current_step = LIST_NEXT(&check->current_step->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
if (&check->current_step->list == head)
break;
@@ -2794,12 +2797,12 @@
/* matched and was supposed to => OK, next step */
else {
/* allow next rule */
- check->current_step = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)check->current_step->list.n;
+ check->current_step = LIST_NEXT(&check->current_step->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
/* bypass all comment rules */
while (&check->current_step->list != head &&
check->current_step->action == TCPCHK_ACT_COMMENT)
- check->current_step = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)check->current_step->list.n;
+ check->current_step = LIST_NEXT(&check->current_step->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
if (&check->current_step->list == head)
break;
@@ -2814,12 +2817,12 @@
/* not matched and was not supposed to => OK, next step */
if (check->current_step->inverse) {
/* allow next rule */
- check->current_step = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)check->current_step->list.n;
+ check->current_step = LIST_NEXT(&check->current_step->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
/* bypass all comment rules */
while (&check->current_step->list != head &&
check->current_step->action == TCPCHK_ACT_COMMENT)
- check->current_step = (struct tcpcheck_rule *)check->current_step->list.n;
+ check->current_step = LIST_NEXT(&check->current_step->list, struct tcpcheck_rule *, list);
if (&check->current_step->list == head)
break;