[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Va
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size") |
Date: |
Sun, 06 Nov 2016 17:45:40 +0200 |
> From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net
> Cc: 24751@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 15:34:29 -0400
>
> >> #define TYPICAL_FAILURE_SIZE 20
> >>
> >> Why do we use an "estimate" here? What's wrong with just using
> >> (re_max_failures * sizeof (fail_stack_elt_t)) as the limit? Or should
> >> the limit actually be (re_max_failures * TYPICAL_FAILURE_SIZE * sizeof
> >> (fail_stack_elt_t))?
> >
> > I think it should be the latter, indeed.
> >
> > Can you propose a patch along those lines that would remove the
> > infloop in ENSURE_FAIL_STACK?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> The below seems to work
Thanks.
I think the patch can be simplified, where we now multiply by the size
of fail_stack_elt_t and then divide by it: simply remove both the
multiplication and the division. That will make the code easier to
read, and will make the units of each variable clear, something that I
think is at the heart of this issue.
> but effectively increases the size of the failure stack (so the
> sample file size has to be increased 8-fold to get a regex stack
> overflow).
Which IMO is exactly TRT, since re_max_failures was computed given the
runtime stack size of 8MB, so having it bail out after merely 800KB
doesn't sound right to me, don't you agree?
> Strangely, changing the value in the definition of re_max_failures
> doesn't seem to have any effect, it stays 40000 regardless. I am
> quite confused.
I don't think I follow. Can you tell what you tried to change, and
where did you see the lack of any effect?
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/04
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), npostavs, 2016/11/05
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), npostavs, 2016/11/13
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/13
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), npostavs, 2016/11/14
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/15
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), npostavs, 2016/11/15
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/16
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), npostavs, 2016/11/16
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/17
- bug#24751: 26.0.50; Regex stack overflow not detected properly (gets "Variable binding depth exceeds max-specpdl-size"), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/19