-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32.4k
gh-127971: fix off-by-one read beyond the end of a string during search #132574
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from 4 commits
f0d20b2
462dddf
1d0210a
212452d
c07c23e
338f32d
9884ec1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ | ||
Fix off-by-one read beyond the end of a string in string search | ||
duaneg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ STRINGLIB(default_find)(const STRINGLIB_CHAR* s, Py_ssize_t n, | |
continue; | ||
} | ||
/* miss: check if next character is part of pattern */ | ||
if (!STRINGLIB_BLOOM(mask, ss[i+1])) { | ||
if (i < w && !STRINGLIB_BLOOM(mask, ss[i+1])) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm totally not sure that There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think the else branch will be OK, since all it does is advance the index, and it is intended and expected that this could potentially advance it past the end of the string, in which case the We can't just replace the the loop condition with Note the conditionals that were changed are miss conditions, i.e. the algorithm has determined the character at the index cannot be part of the pattern at this location in the string. The conditionals modified are checking whether the following character could potentially be part of a pattern hit, so as to determine whether to skip it entirely by advancing the full length of the pattern or only as much as possible while still considering it as a valid potential hit. In the case where we are at the end of the buffer it doesn't actually matter which branch we take, since either way it will advance past it and terminate. We just need to avoid reading the invalid following character when it doesn't exist. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Maybe it's better to rewrite condition as
IMO, rewrited condition slightly reduces cognitive load. |
||
i = i + m; | ||
} | ||
else { | ||
|
@@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ STRINGLIB(default_find)(const STRINGLIB_CHAR* s, Py_ssize_t n, | |
} | ||
else { | ||
/* skip: check if next character is part of pattern */ | ||
if (!STRINGLIB_BLOOM(mask, ss[i+1])) { | ||
if (i < w && !STRINGLIB_BLOOM(mask, ss[i+1])) { | ||
i = i + m; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.