Fix ws binary/base64 subprotocol priority #595
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
bk138
requested changes
Oct 25, 2023
src/libvncserver/websockets.c
Outdated
| @@ -289,13 +291,15 @@ webSocketsHandshake(rfbClientPtr cl, char *scheme) | |||
| return FALSE; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if ((protocol) && (strstr(protocol, "base64"))) { | |||
| proto_binary = strstr(protocol, "binary"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that's UB if protocol is NULL. Maybe just inline those calls?
| if ((protocol) && (strstr(protocol, "base64"))) { | ||
| proto_binary = strstr(protocol, "binary"); | ||
| proto_base64 = strstr(protocol, "base64"); | ||
| if ((protocol) && (proto_base64 && (!proto_binary || proto_base64 < proto_binary))) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After the ||, you're comparing char*? That can't be right.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Comparing pointers is the priority check: the one that comes first has the priority.
| @@ -289,13 +291,15 @@ webSocketsHandshake(rfbClientPtr cl, char *scheme) | |||
| return FALSE; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if ((protocol) && (strstr(protocol, "base64"))) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All in all: why not simply swap the if and else blocks?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some articles mention the list of protocols like "a list of sub-protocols that the client can handle in the priority order". So it's logical to respect the priority.
VelorumS
force-pushed
the
ws-subproto-priority
branch
from
fe6607c
to
76a0f50
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The problem is when the client advertises
"protocol": ["binary", "base64"], the server picksbase64. The server should prefer the first one.It's an issue when the client had this configuration as a fix to the
400 Client must support 'binary' or 'base64' protocolerror with noVNC and old websockify + VNC: novnc/noVNC#1276 (comment) . Today it seems that noVNC doesn't dobase64any more. Although it's now incorrect for the client to advertise both protocols, it's not intuitive that"protocol": ["binary", "base64"]doesn't work while"protocol": ["binary"]does.Relevant PR/issue:
#342
novnc/noVNC#1310