BUG/MINOR: acme: possible overflow in acme_will_expire()

acme_will_expire() computes the schedule date using notAfter and
notBefore from the certificate. However notBefore could be greater than
notAfter and could result in an overflow.

This is unlikely to happen and would mean an incorrect certificate.

This patch fixes the issue by checking that notAfter > notBefore.

It also replace the int type by a time_t to avoid overflow on 64bits
architecture which is also unlikely to happen with certificates.

`(date.tv_sec + diff > notAfter)` was also replaced by `if (notAfter -
diff <= date.tv_sec)` to avoid an overflow.

Fix issue #3135.

Need to be backported to 3.2.

diff --git a/src/acme.c b/src/acme.c
index b5746a41a8886fd4f55f94edfdd561288df3caed..d021638388c8b9a7660db73f86351b8dd21e1ad2 100644 (file)
--- a/src/acme.c
+++ b/src/acme.c
@@ -2352,7 +2352,7 @@ wait:
  */
 int acme_will_expire(struct ckch_store *store)
 {
-       int diff = 0;
+       time_t diff = 0;
        time_t notAfter = 0;
        time_t notBefore = 0;
 
@@ -2363,13 +2363,14 @@ int acme_will_expire(struct ckch_store *store)
        notAfter = x509_get_notafter_time_t(store->data->cert);
        notBefore = x509_get_notbefore_time_t(store->data->cert);
 
-       if (notAfter >= 0 && notBefore >= 0) {
+       if ((notAfter >= 0 && notBefore >= 0)
+          && (notAfter > notBefore)) {
                diff = (notAfter - notBefore) / 12; /* validity period / 12 */
        } else {
                diff = 7 * 24 * 60 * 60; /* default to 7 days */
        }
 
-       if (date.tv_sec + diff > notAfter)
+       if (notAfter - diff <= date.tv_sec)
                return 1;
 
        return 0;