-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 619
fix: correct address validation and memcpy usage in CSphUrl::Connect #3804
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
sanikolaev
wants to merge
2
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
issue-3799
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Parameter 1: Destination (
&sin.sin_addr)struct in_addr *(pointer to the IP address field in the socket address structure)Parameter 2: Source (the key difference)
Original (Incorrect) Source:
hp->ai_addrstruct sockaddr *(generic socket address structure)Fixed Source:
&( (struct sockaddr_in *)hp->ai_addr )->sin_addrstruct in_addr *(pointer specifically to the IP address field)hp->ai_addr- Get the generic socket address pointer(struct sockaddr_in *)hp->ai_addr- Cast it to IPv4-specific socket address structure( ... )->sin_addr- Access the IP address field within that structure&( ... )- Get the address of that IP address fieldParameter 3: Size (the other key difference)
Original (Incorrect) Size:
Min ( sizeof(sin.sin_addr), (size_t)hp->ai_addrlen )hp->ai_addrlenis the size of the entiresockaddr_instructure (16 bytes), butsin.sin_addris only 4 bytesFixed Size:
sizeof(sin.sin_addr)Why This Matters
Memory Layout Visualization
Impact of the Bug
getaddrinfo()successfully resolved the hostname, the wrong data was being used for the connectionConsistency with SphinxSE
This fix makes the UDF's hostname resolution consistent with the working SphinxSE engine implementation in
ha_sphinx.cc, which uses the same correct approach:Result
After this fix, the
sphinx_snippets()UDF can now properly resolve hostnames from/etc/hostsand DNS, making it consistent with the SphinxSE engine's behavior.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tomatolog does this explanation make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@klirichek could you check that the last fix is really good now?
The explanation said it is a right fix for the original issue.