Handle invalid CRLF in header name. fixes #122 #141
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
This will also fix: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=67660 |
DavidKorczynski
pushed a commit
to google/oss-fuzz
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2024
Fixes: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=67660 (Fuzz-Blocker) This is a temp fix, till Kludex/python-multipart#141 lands.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This handles the case of an unexpected CR in the middle of a part header, before the colon. This is the underlying cause associated with an IndexError in #122.
As far as I can tell, a CR after some header name bytes have been read, (i.e. not at the start of the line and before a colon) is always invalid, so we can just raise an error when it's encountered.
The code change altered an existing test result because an invalid CR is detected, before the absence of "LF" after, so the offset associated with the error is one less.
In the test data for #122 there's also a boundary string in the header, but this is not directly a problem - it's the CRLF at the end of the boundary that's invalid syntax.