W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: New Version Notification for draft-kamp-httpbis-structure-01.txt (fwd)

From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:17:07 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzwrPxyRPET5SO6fYGZ_6NnqToU9a630x1gjZXx5uAbeuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

2016-11-17 14:53 GMT+09:00 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>:
> Hi Kazuho,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:06:04AM +0900, Kazuho Oku wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you for writing the draft.
>>
>> Regarding the numbers, could we either exclude floating point from the
>> specification or state that an integral number MUST be encoded without
>> using a dot?
>>
>> The reason I ask is because it is hard to correctly implement a parser
>> for floating point numbers, and a bug in the parser would likely lead
>> to a vulnerability [1]. Note that in some (if not most) of the
>> programming languages you would need to implement your own number
>> parser to meet the needs. For example, you cannot use sscanf in C,
>> because depending on the locale the function allows use of decimal
>> points other than '.'.
>>
>> If we could exclude floating point numbers from the specification
>> entirely or have a restriction something like above, parser
>> implementors can refrain from implementing their own floating point
>> number parsers until the specification in which they are interested in
>> actually start using the notation.
>>
>> Non-integral numbers are rarely used in the HTTP headers. The only one
>> I can recall is the q value of Accept-Encoding, but it is not a
>> floating-point but actually a fixed-point number (of three decimals
>> below the point), which could have been represented by using integral
>> numbers between 0 to 1000.
>>
>>      weight = OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue
>>      qvalue = ( "0" [ "." 0*3DIGIT ] )
>>             / ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] )
>
> I'd like to avoid FP as well. However it's important to note that fixed
> point numbers is not exempt from similar issues due to the way they are
> encoded, since everyone will store them in floats/doubles,

Yes. Therefore, I believe that the we should discourage people from
using fixed point numbers.

For example, if we want to define a quality value like the one found
in Accept-Encoding, we should not use three-digit fixed point numbers,
but instead use an integral value between 0 to 1000.

That way, we can totally avoid the issues introduced by a dot within a number.

> but the error
> is limited to the mantissa precision. For example 64-bit double numbers
> contain a 53 bit mantissa so we can easily see a difference in the lower
> bits. Example :
>
>   #include <stdio.h>
>   #include <stdlib.h>
>
>   int main(int argc, char **argv)
>   {
>         double f = atof(argv[1]);
>         printf("input=%s float=%f\n", argv[1], f);
>         return 0;
>   }
>
>   $ ./a.out $((1<<32)).000001
>   input=4294967296.000001 float=4294967296.000001
>   $ ./a.out $((1<<33)).000001
>   input=8589934592.000001 float=8589934592.000002
>
> In my opinion we don't care here. And maybe we can document the expected
> minimal precision (eg: minimum 53 bits to be able to store a 32-bit
> integral range with a 1/1000000 fractional precision.
>
> Also it's pretty certain that developers will use atof() on fixed point
> numbers, but at least the input can be sanitized easily by ensuring that
> only digits, dot and - are allowed in it.
>
> Regards,
> Willy



-- 
Kazuho Oku
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 07:17:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 17 November 2016 07:17:43 UTC