Fix GH-16433: Large values for openssl_csr_sign() $days overflow #16437
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The `offset_sec` parameter of `X509_gmtime_adj()` expects a `long`, but the `$days` parameter of `openssl_csr_sign()` a `zend_long`. We must avoid signed integer overflow (UB), but also must not silently truncate. Thus we check the given `$days` for the permissible range, and bail out otherwise.
bukka
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
offset_secparameter ofX509_gmtime_adj()expects along, but the$daysparameter ofopenssl_csr_sign()azend_long. We must avoid signed integer overflow (UB), but also must not silently truncate. Thus we check the given$daysfor the permissible range, and bail out otherwise.Note that the lower bound (
0) is somewhat arbitrary; we could allow values >=LONG_MIN / 86400. I don't know if that makes sense, though (maybe for testing purposes?)Also note that I've used
E_WARNINGfor consistency with the rest, but that should probably propagated to aValueError.