I think this was always pretty questionable. You can set redundant bans
in various ways anyway, and preventing all of them would only make the
situation worse, as wide temporary bans would destroy narrow permanent
ones, for example.
We were ending the flood grace period for any channel mode command other
than `MODE #foo [bq]` by means of a hardcoded check. I've moved that to
after we parse the mode string, so we can correctly identify all
requests to change modes and end the grace period on exactly those.
It would have been entirely possible to move the check even further down
and flood_endgrace on only mode commands that *actually* change modes,
but I don't like the idea of making it sensitive to external conditions.
Incoming MODE processing is split into a parsing step and an execution
step, instead of a mode's effector function being involved in its own
parsing. Modes can no longer use custom logic to control their parsing,
and instead supply a combination of CHM_* flags to the parser. As a
result, we know before we try to effect any mode changes what all of
them will be.
The reauthorize hack for override is no longer necessary. A side effect
of its introduction was that `MODE #foo b x!y@z` no longer worked; in
removing it we restore that behaviour.
We gain the ability to reject various invalid inputs that:
- mutate or query unknown modes
- supply excess mode arguments
- query modes that can't be queried
In each case, whether we *should* reject it is an open question; for now
I'm rejecting the first one.
Otherwise, sendto_channel_local_priv() will only distribute mode changes
to opers only. This is because HasPrivilege(target_p, "") will evaluate
as false due to the target not being opered.
Thanks to Devin Brown for bisecting this issue.
I'm preparing to PR a succession of privs changes with the ultimate goal
of severely limiting the scope of the binary oper/user dichotomy and
move conceptually distinct oper functions into their own privs.
Accomplishing this is a non-trivial task, and can wait, but it's
inconvenient now to have such functions enabled by the same mechanism
that grants any privs at all--so I'm moving all of them to a
transitional priv with the intention of eroding that later.
[ircd/match.c:316]: (error) Shifting a negative value is undefined behaviour
[librb/src/patricia.c:55]: (error) Shifting a negative value is undefined behaviour
[modules/m_alias.c:64]: (portability) '(void*)message' is of type 'void *'. When using void pointers in calculations, the behaviour is undefined.
[modules/m_time.c:111]: (warning) %u in format string (no. 9) requires 'unsigned int' but the argument type is 'signed int'.
[modules/m_time.c:111]: (warning) %u in format string (no. 10) requires 'unsigned int' but the argument type is 'signed int'.
[librb/src/dictionary.c:819]: (warning) %d in format string (no. 3) requires 'int' but the argument type is 'unsigned int'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:1080]: (warning) %d in format string (no. 3) requires 'int' but the argument type is 'unsigned int'.
[ircd/s_user.c:351] -> [ircd/s_user.c:357]: (warning) Either the condition '0!=source_p' is redundant or there is possible null pointer dereference: source_p.
[extensions/ip_cloaking_3.0.c:109]: (warning, inconclusive) The buffer 'buf' may not be null-terminated after the call to strncpy().
[ircd/chmode.c:256]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[modules/m_help.c:100]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[modules/m_knock.c:169]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[modules/m_stats.c:628]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[modules/m_stats.c:727]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:601]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:704]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:739]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:763]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:768]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:774]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:781]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:786]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:791]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[librb/src/radixtree.c:804]: (style) Clarify calculation precedence for '&' and '?'.
[ircd/wsproc.c:372]: (style) Unused variable: len
[modules/core/m_modules.c:382]: (style) Unused variable: i
[modules/m_stats.c:741]: (style) Unused variable: amsg
[ircd/authproc.c:390]: (style) Unused variable: iter
[ircd/authproc.c:391]: (style) Unused variable: client_p
Charybdis requires C99 already, so it's high time we start using
stdbool. I've converted a few pieces of code already.
A lot of the old code that uses YES/NO should probably be updated too
because that's fucking hideous.
We're setting flags to flags_list[3] at the end of the loop, but the
array only has 3 elements. Unless the compiler optimises this away
(because flags will not be used again) we're accessing memory beyond
the end of the array.
With gcc-4.9:
chmode.c: In function 'set_channel_mode':
chmode.c:1548:54: warning: iteration 2u invokes undefined behavior [-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
for(j = 0, flags = flags_list[0]; j < 3; j++, flags = flags_list[j])
^
chmode.c:1548:2: note: containing loop
for(j = 0, flags = flags_list[0]; j < 3; j++, flags = flags_list[j])
Explicitly set "flags = flags_list[j]" at the start of each loop
iteration, which will avoid referencing off the end of the array.
