[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: nedit-develop
Subject: [ nedit-Bugs-1887838 ] fix possible stack overflow in interpreter
From: "SourceForge.net" <noreply () sourceforge ! net>
Date: 2008-05-14 8:22:36
Message-ID: E1JwCFw-0005Zl-Dq () sc8-sf-web21 ! sourceforge ! net
[Download RAW message or body]
Bugs item #1887838, was opened at 2008-02-06 13:19
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by lebert
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=111005&aid=1887838&group_id=11005
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Program
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: fix possible stack overflow in interpreter
Initial Comment:
the check for stack overflow in pushSymVal() should be done before writing to the stack
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-05-14 10:22
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
I have no problem with committing part two. I just thought that this
commit wouldn't fit into the current phase of the release plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Tony Balinski (ajbj)
Date: 2008-05-14 09:29
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=618141
Originator: NO
A "first round" of this was committed in March. It made use of PUSH and
POP macros much more consistent, but did not add the "PUSH/POP look like
functions" fix Bert told us about (using a do{}while(0) to allow correct
behaviour with if statements, and requiring a trailing semicolon). Can we
have that final fixed stuff now please?
Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-03-09 14:32
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
Ok
BTW for this and other bugs I found, I posted the patch first to the list,
than after a while (without response) I put it in the tracker. Now that I
have write access, I would skip the SF entry and commit it directly, with a
good commit message. I don't think that such bugs (found by a developer)
should be in the ReleaseNoters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Thorsten Haude (yooden)
Date: 2008-03-09 14:27
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=119143
Originator: NO
During the Big Beef someone pointed out that I did three feature commits
without stating the SF patch number in the commit messages. After that I
added the $NEXT_VERSION section and add my comment immediately or in a
small batch for a group of recent patches. I don't see a downside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-03-09 14:06
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
nope, I didn't should I, or do we do this in a bigger hunk?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Thorsten Haude (yooden)
Date: 2008-03-09 13:54
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=119143
Originator: NO
I never checked, I assumed that you already changed ReleaseNotes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-03-09 13:48
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
I leaved it open for the ReleaseNotes
I will handle the cleanup patch outside of this bug report
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Thorsten Haude (yooden)
Date: 2008-03-09 13:35
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=119143
Originator: NO
So I assume that this is fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-03-01 01:45
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
Ok, I committed the actual bug fix. for the clean-up of the stack macros
(ie the follow-up patch) I like to get an ACK, at least from tony, because
he do most inside interpret.c and this will break some of his patches,
because of the needed ';' after all stack macros.
I attached an updated patch.
File Added: interpret-macro-cleanup.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Scott Tringali (tringali)
Date: 2008-02-21 21:11
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=11321
Originator: NO
Good stuff here. I added you as a developer, I hope it's easier to
update/commit changes directly than write patches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-02-21 20:49
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
follow-up patch updated: the StringToNumberMsg now includes a '%s' to
print the string that was tried to convert to a number (this was actually
found in the Patch Collection)
File Added: interpret-macro-cleanup.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-02-07 15:45
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
sorry forget to refresh the actual patch file
File Added: interpret-macro-cleanup.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-02-07 15:43
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
follow-up patch updated: make it compile and remove variable shadowing
File Added: interpret-macro-cleanup.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-02-07 15:23
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
follow-up patch: refactor PUSH/POP/PEEK macros
use 'do {} while(0)' for these macros, that means add a ';' after all
calls
because this touches almost all functions, I haven't done code style fixes
File Added: interpret-macro-cleanup.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-02-07 15:14
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
updated patch: move variable declaration in front of code
File Added: fix-stack-overflow-check.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Tony Balinski (ajbj)
Date: 2008-02-06 22:30
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=618141
Originator: NO
Nicely done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Bert Wesarg (lebert)
Date: 2008-02-06 14:52
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=122956
Originator: YES
there where some more handcrafted stack pops/pushs including one more with
the check after the assigment. this patch converts these to use the
POP/PUSH macros and do some style clean ups.
File Added: fix-stack-overflow-check.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=111005&aid=1887838&group_id=11005
--
NEdit Develop mailing list - Develop@nedit.org
http://www.nedit.org/mailman/listinfo/develop
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic