[reSIProcate] Problem using resipfaststream

[Byron Campen]

	I agree.

Best regards,
Byron Campen

> I would prefer to add an assertion to the Data constructors. Passing a
> negative value as a length suggests a confused caller.
>
> david
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Dario Bozzali
> <Dario.Bozzali at ifminfomaster.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I noticed that in Resiprocate main SVN head it was fixed the issue  
>> in TlsConnection.cxx related to number of bytes returned by  
>> function SSL_read:
>> int bytesRead = SSL_read(mSsl,buf,count);
>> StackLog(<< "SSL_read returned " << bytesRead << " bytes [" <<  
>> Data(Data::Borrow, buf, (bytesRead > 0)?(bytesRead):(0)) << "]");
>>
>> I also noticed that the same work-around was not applied to the  
>> following lines (always in TlsConnection.cxx).
>> restBytes = SSL_read(mSsl, buffer, SSL_pending(mSsl));
>> StackLog(<< "SSL_read returned  " << restBytes << " bytes [" <<  
>> Data(Data::Borrow, buffer, restBytes) << "]");
>> Is it not possible in this case that SSL_read() function returns -1  
>> value?
>>
>> Any news regarding the fix proposed by Justin?
>>
>> I had a look at the code and in my opinion could be sufficient to  
>> change the following Data constructors:
>> - Data::Data(const char* str, int length)
>> - Data::Data(const unsigned char* str, int length)
>> - Data::Data(const char* str, int length, bool)
>> - Data::Data(ShareEnum se, const char* buffer, int length)
>> Changing mSize initialization from
>>  : mSize(length),
>> to
>>  : mSize(length > 0 ? length : 0),
>>
>> What's your opinion regarding this change?
>>
>> Thank you in advance.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dario.
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Justin Matthews [mailto:jmatthewsr at gmail.com]
>> Sent: martedì 4 novembre 2008 18.17
>> To: Dario Bozzali; resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
>> Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] Problem using resipfaststream
>>
>> Anyone have any objections/comments on making the changes described  
>> below to
>> resip::Data() constructors?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -justin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Justin Matthews [mailto:jmatthewsr at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:06 AM
>> To: 'Dario Bozzali'; 'resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org'
>> Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] Problem using resipfaststream
>>
>> Looks like the StackLog entry should be checking the return value  
>> from SSL_read.
>>
>> Also, any resip::Data constructors that take an int (or any  
>> functions that set Data::mSize) should be checking to see if the  
>> int is < 0 before assigning mSize (unsigned).
>>
>> You can comment out the StackLog entry for now.  Send any other  
>> errors that you encounter.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -justin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces at resiprocate.org
>> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces at resiprocate.org] On Behalf Of  
>> Dario Bozzali
>> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:48 AM
>> To: resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
>> Subject: [reSIProcate] Problem using resipfaststream
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I encountered an issue using Resiprocate 1.4 (SVN head) using  
>> resipfaststreams (define RESIP_USE_STL_STREAMS is commented).
>> I obtained an access violation (using TLS, but I think that this is  
>> not
>> important) I suppose because the read buffer size was -1.
>> In TlsConnection.cxx there are the following two lines:
>>       int bytesRead = SSL_read(mSsl,buf,count);
>>       StackLog(<< "SSL_read returned " << bytesRead << " bytes ["  
>> << Data(Data::Borrow, buf, bytesRead) << "]"); Executing my  
>> application SSL_read() returns -1.
>> I suppose that the access violation is caused by operator <<  
>> applied to Data(Data::Borrow, buf, bytesRead), where bytesRead is -1.
>> I had a look at "size_t DataBuffer::readbuf(char *buf, size_t count)"
>> and "size_t DataBuffer::writebuf(const char *str, size_t count)" in  
>> Resiprocate\rutil\DataStream.cxx that are used when  
>> RESIP_USE_STL_STREAMS is not defined.
>> The type of size_t is unsigned int but in readbuf() and writebuf()  
>> is executed the following check:
>> [...]
>>  if (count <= 0)
>>  {
>>     return 0;
>>  }
>> [...]
>> Actually if buffer size is -1, then count is 4294967295, so the  
>> method doesn't exit and the writebuf() method causes access  
>> violation.
>> Is that right or did I make a mistake?
>>
>> Thank you in advance.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dario Bozzali.
>> _______________________________________________
>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
>> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
>> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> resiprocate-devel mailing list
>> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
>> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel