[PATCH] inetutils: Fix the rcp couldn't copy subdirectory issue

[PATCH] inetutils: Fix the rcp couldn't copy subdirectory issue

[Zhixiong Chi]

Since snprintf doesn't support the same src and dst address, it will get
the wrong result.
In the sink second recursive call env, the argv and the namebuf will point
the same address, after free operation for namebuf.
So the last change for this is wrong, now we just drop the free function
in the recursive loop to get the correct path of file and directory.
Even though there will be memory leak, the allocated static area memory
will be released after process exited.

Signed-off-by: Zhixiong Chi <zhixiong.chi@windriver.com>
---
 .../0001-Fix-the-rcp-copy-issue.patch         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../inetutils/inetutils_1.9.4.bb              |  1 +
 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-connectivity/inetutils/inetutils/0001-Fix-the-rcp-copy-issue.patch

diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/inetutils/inetutils/0001-Fix-the-rcp-copy-issue.patch b/meta/recipes-connectivity/inetutils/inetutils/0001-Fix-the-rcp-copy-issue.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..0c488df1d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/inetutils/inetutils/0001-Fix-the-rcp-copy-issue.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+The namebuf will get the same allocation address as the one before
+free operation, at the same time because of the recursive call for
+sink function, the targ and namebuf point the same address, then it
+cause the namebuf will get the wrong value with the snprintf function.
+Since the snprintf function doesn't like the strcpy function which
+can overwrite the destination.
+eg:
+ char tmp[20] = "test";
+ snprintf(tmp,20,"%s%s",tmp,"yes");
+The result of tmp -> yes. It will cause the wrong value.
+
+The sink function flow is as follows:
+ >sink(int argc, char*argv[])
+ >{
+ > ...
+ > targ = *argv;
+ > static char *namebuf = NULL;
+ > free (namebuf);
+ > namebuf = malloc (need);
+ > snprintf (namebuf, cursize, "%s%s%s", targ, *targ ? "/" : "", cp);
+ > np = namebuf;
+ > vect[0] = np;
+ > sink (1, vect);
+ > ...
+ >}
+
+Upstream-Status: Pending
+signed-off-by: Zhixiong Chi <zhixiong.chi@windriver.com>
+--- inetutils-1.9.4.orig/src/rcp.c	2019-05-16 16:54:01.293997574 +0800
++++ inetutils-1.9.4/src/rcp.c	2019-05-16 16:56:55.981998792 +0800
+@@ -995,7 +995,6 @@
+ 	  need = strlen (targ) + strlen (cp) + 250;
+ 	  if (need > cursize)
+ 	    {
+-	      free (namebuf);
+ 	      namebuf = malloc (need);
+ 	      if (namebuf)
+ 		cursize = need;
diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/inetutils/inetutils_1.9.4.bb b/meta/recipes-connectivity/inetutils/inetutils_1.9.4.bb
index ac2e017d8b..fab6f3d3af 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-connectivity/inetutils/inetutils_1.9.4.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/inetutils/inetutils_1.9.4.bb
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ SRC_URI = "${GNU_MIRROR}/inetutils/inetutils-${PV}.tar.gz \
            file://inetutils-1.9-PATH_PROCNET_DEV.patch \
            file://inetutils-only-check-pam_appl.h-when-pam-enabled.patch \
            file://0001-rcp-fix-to-work-with-large-files.patch \
+           file://0001-Fix-the-rcp-copy-issue.patch \
 "
 
 SRC_URI[md5sum] = "04852c26c47cc8c6b825f2b74f191f52"
-- 
2.21.0

✗ patchtest: failure for inetutils: Fix the rcp couldn't copy subdirectory issue

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: inetutils: Fix the rcp couldn't copy subdirectory issue
Revision: 1
URL   : https://patchwork.openembedded.org/series/18178/
State : failure

== Summary ==


Thank you for submitting this patch series to OpenEmbedded Core. This is
an automated response. Several tests have been executed on the proposed
series by patchtest resulting in the following failures:



* Issue             A patch file has been added, but does not have a Signed-off-by tag [test_signed_off_by_presence] 
  Suggested fix    Sign off the added patch file (meta/recipes-connectivity/inetutils/inetutils/0001-Fix-the-rcp-copy-issue.patch)



If you believe any of these test results are incorrect, please reply to the
mailing list (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org) raising your concerns.
Otherwise we would appreciate you correcting the issues and submitting a new
version of the patchset if applicable. Please ensure you add/increment the
version number when sending the new version (i.e. [PATCH] -> [PATCH v2] ->
[PATCH v3] -> ...).

---
Guidelines:     https://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines
Test framework: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/patchtest
Test suite:     http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/patchtest-oe