Skip Menu |
Report information
The Basics
Id: 46709
Status: resolved
Priority: 0/
Queue: bind9-public

People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc:
AdminCc:

Bug Information
Version Fixed: 9.9.12, 9.9.12(sub), 9.10.7, 9.10.7(sub), 9.11.3, 9.12.0
Version Found: (no value)
Versions Affected: (no value)
Versions Planned: (no value)
Priority: P2 Normal
Severity: S2 Normal
CVSS Score: (no value)
CVE ID: (no value)
Component: (no value)
Area: bug

Dates
Created:Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:39:27 -0500
Updated:Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:14:15 -0500
Closed:Tue, 28 Nov 2017 06:39:49 -0500



This bug tracker is no longer active.

Please go to our Gitlab to submit issues (both feature requests and bug reports) for active projects maintained by Internet Systems Consortium (ISC).

Due to security and confidentiality requirements, full access is limited to the primary maintainers.

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:39:27 -1000
To: bind9-public@isc.org
From: marka@isc.org
Subject: isc_heap_delete not clearing index value
If isc_heap_delete is called with a heap that updates the index value it should set the index value of the deleted entry to zero.
ready for review
To: "Mark Andrews via RT" <bind9-public@isc.org>
From: "Mukund Sivaraman" <muks@isc.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:34:46 +0530
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #46709] isc_heap_delete not clearing index value
Now that isc_heap_delete() calls ->index(), is the change to rbtdb.c @@ setsigningtime() still required? The change to isc_heap_delete() and testcase looks ok. In the testcase, I'd assert e1.index != 0 in the first case as asserting index 1 looks for implementation detail. But that's just IMO.. it look fine other than that. Mukund
From: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
To: bind9-public@isc.org
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #46709] isc_heap_delete not clearing index value
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:38:05 +1100
> On 28 Nov 2017, at 6:05 pm, Mukund Sivaraman via RT <bind9-public@isc.org> wrote: > > Now that isc_heap_delete() calls ->index(), is the change to rbtdb.c @@ > setsigningtime() still required? No. Changing that is followup work. > The change to isc_heap_delete() and testcase looks ok. In the testcase, > I'd assert e1.index != 0 in the first case as asserting index 1 looks > for implementation detail. But that's just IMO.. it look fine other than > that. > > Mukund > > > > -- > Ticket History: https://bugs.isc.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=46709 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
What's the impact of this one on functionality/behaviour of BIND?
From: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:43:37 +1100
To: bind9-public@isc.org
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #46709] isc_heap_delete not clearing index value
> On 28 Nov 2017, at 6:39 pm, Cathy Almond via RT <bind9-public@isc.org> wrote: > > What's the impact of this one on functionality/behaviour of BIND? Nothing as the code works around it at present. It’s just inconsistent behaviour in that every other operation updates the index when there is a callback specified. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
4829. [bug] isc_heap_delete did not zero the index value when the heap was created with a callback to do that. [RT #46709]