This combination had been successfully tested with ngIRCd 21, but after
further investigation didn't build correctly: it seems as if tcc fails
to correctly link external libraries (e. g. ngipaddr).
Astonishingly the test suite passed nevertheless, with garbled output,
but without the daemon crashing!?
When using tcc with ngIRCd 23 (and current master), the test suite fails
completely because the daemon crashes ... (which actually is good!)
Display "?" in the "runs" colum when the simple "run test" succeeded but
the test suite failed. And display a message to double check the actual
status, because it is somewhat unclear, if the daemon actually "works"
or not in this case.
Clients can specify multiple targets for the "PRIVMSG", "NOTICE", and
"SQUERY" commands, separated by commas (e. g. "PRIVMSG a,#b,c :text").
Since commit 49ab79d0 ("Limit the number of message targes, and suppress
duplicates"), ngIRCd crashed when the client sent the separator character
only as target(s), e. g. "," or ",,,," etc.!
This patch fixes the bug and adds a test case for this issue.
Thanks to Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> for spotting the issue!
This prevents an user from flooding the server using commands like this:
PRIVMSG nick1,nick1,nick1,...
Duplicate targets are suppressed silently (channels and clients).
In addition, the maximum number of targets per PRIVMSG/NOTICE/... command
are limited to MAX_HNDL_TARGETS (25). If there are more, the daemon sends
the new 407 (ERR_TOOMANYTARGETS_MSG) numeric, containing the first target
that hasn't been handled any more.
Closes#187.
Either we use assert() to _guarantee_ a certain condition, or we use
if(...) to test for it. But never both.
So get rid of the assert() in Send_Message_Mask() and handle the case
that the target mask doesn't contain a dot (".") as regular error,
don't require the caller to assure that any more.
This polishes commit 5a312824.
Please note:
The test in Send_Message() is still _required_ to detect whether the
target is a channel (no dot) or a "target mask" (at least one dot)!
Don't crash the daemon when the NJOIN handler can't join the new client
to a channel (when the Channel_Join() function failed) but try to KILL this
client -- which is the only possible reaction besides crashing: otherwise
the network would get out of sync.
The IRC_KillClient() function is documented to handle the case that the
"Client" structure is NULL, so make sure that this actually works and
can't crash the daemon.
Please note:
The current code doesn't make use of this feature, so this fix is
definitely the "right" thing to do but doesn't fix an actual problem.
ngIRCd tested for the wrong prefix of "half ops" when processing NJOIN
commands and therefore never classified a remote user as "half op".
Thanks to wowaname for pointing this out on #ngircd!
Now ngIRCd catches more errors on the server-to-server (S2S) protocol
that could crash the daemon before. This hasn't been a real problem
because the IRC S2S protocol is "trusted" by design, but the behavior
is much better now.
Thanks to wowaname on #ngircd for pointing this out!
At the moment ngircd fails the tests for reproducible builds in Debian
since it uses the __DATE__ and __TIME__ macros for the INFO command.
Instead of patching this out I decided to implement an optional
constant BIRTHTIME that allows you to set a time stamp for the "Birth
Date" information, in seconds since the epoch, like in
export CFLAGS += -DBIRTHTIME=$(shell date +%s --date="2015/08/15 23:42:22")
In the future, Debian will provide a SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment
variable, dealing with the situation until then will be my job.
The time format was taken from the NGIRCd_StartStr formatting in
ngircd.c so the "Birth Date" and "On-line since" lines in the INFO
output look similar:
:irc.example.net 371 nick :ngIRCd 22.1-IDENT+IPv6+IRCPLUS+PAM+SSL+SYSLOG+ZLIB-x86_64/pc/linux-gnu
:irc.example.net 371 nick :Birth Date: Tue Aug 25 2015 at 18:11:11 (CEST)
:irc.example.net 371 nick :On-line since Tue Aug 25 2015 at 18:11:33 (CEST)
:irc.example.net 374 nick :End of INFO list
The format of the time stamped is changed, but as far as I can tell, there's no
rule that is violated by that.
Bonus level: Reformat the messages so the time stamps are aligned.
Alexander Barton