Why is it not necessary to determine a common year or a leap year here
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- C
- Stars
- 1.1k
- Forks
- 348
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Hi all,
For the BOOLEAN EFIAPI ConvertAsn1TimeToEfiTime (IN ASN1_TIME *Asn1Time, OUT EFI_TIME *EfiTime) interface in Cryptlib/Pk/CryptTs.c, I have some questions.
EfiTime->Month = (Str[Index++] - '0') * 10;
EfiTime->Month += (Str[Index++] - '0');
if ((EfiTime->Month < 1) || (EfiTime->Month > 12)) {
return FALSE;
}
EfiTime->Day = (Str[Index++] - '0') * 10;
EfiTime->Day += (Str[Index++] - '0');
if ((EfiTime->Day < 1) || (EfiTime->Day > 31)) {
return FALSE;
}
Here, the validity of EfiTime->Day is not checked based on EfiTime->Month and EfiTime->Year. For instance, when EfiTime->Month is 2, EfiTime->Day in a common year should not exceed 28, and in a leap year, it should not exceed 29. When EfiTime->Month is 4, EfiTime->Day should not exceed 30.
Why is it only necessary to check whether EfiTime->Day is between 1 and 31 here? Could anyone help explain this? Thank you
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Read Cryptlib/Pk/CryptTs.c and inspect ConvertAsn1TimeToEfiTime, focusing on the month, day, and year parsing shown in the issue. Check whether validation is handled elsewhere or whether this path accepts impossible calendar dates; done means documenting the rationale or defining the required validation behavior.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- c
- Domain
- operating-systems
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100