Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
process: fix two overflow cases in SourceMap VLQ decoding - #31490
Closed
jridgewell wants to merge 3 commits into
Closed
process: fix two overflow cases in SourceMap VLQ decoding#31490jridgewell wants to merge 3 commits into
jridgewell wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
These both have to do with extremely large numbers, so it's unlikely to cause a problem in practice. Still, correctness. First, encoding `-2147483648` in VLQ returns the value `"B"`. When decoding, we get the value `1` after reading the base64. We then check if the first bit is set (it is) to see if we should negate it, then we shift all bits right once. Now, `value` will be `0` and `negate` will be `true`. So, we'd return `-0`. Which is a bug! `-0` isn't `-2147483648`, and we've broken a round trip. Second, encoding any number with the 31st bit set, we'd return the opposite sign. Let's use `1073741824`. Encoding, we get `"ggggggC"`. When decoding, we get the value `-2147483648` after reading the base64. Notice, it's already negative (the 32nd bit is set, because the 31st was set and we shifted everything left once). We'd then check the first bit (it's not) and shift right. But we used `>>`, which does not shift the sign bit. We actually wanted `>>>`, which will. Because of that bug, we get back `-1073741824` instead of the positive `1073741824`. It's even worse if the 32nd and 31st bits are set, `-1610612736` becomes `536870912` after a round trip. I recently fixed the same two bugs in Closure Compiler: google/closure-compiler@584418eb
mscdex
commented
Jan 24, 2020
Contributor
Can you include some tests? |
jridgewell
commented
Jan 24, 2020
ContributorAuthor
Sure. Is it ok to expose the |
mscdex
commented
Jan 24, 2020
Contributor
It's probably better to test via |
addaleax
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2020
cjihrig
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2020
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
bcoe
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2020
devnexen
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2020
jridgewell
commented
Jan 25, 2020
ContributorAuthor
Tests added. |
devsnek
reviewed
Jan 25, 2020
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
bcoe
approved these changes
Jan 25, 2020
bcoe
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for adding the tests, It's great to have an extra set of eyes on the implementation.
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Jan 25, 2020
Collaborator
Trott
approved these changes
Jan 25, 2020
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Jan 25, 2020
Collaborator
devsnek
approved these changes
Jan 26, 2020
nodejs-github-bot
commented
Jan 26, 2020
Collaborator
Trott
commented
Jan 27, 2020
Member
Landed in 0214b90 |
Trott pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 27, 2020
These both have to do with extremely large numbers, so it's unlikely to cause a problem in practice. Still, correctness. First, encoding `-2147483648` in VLQ returns the value `"B"`. When decoding, we get the value `1` after reading the base64. We then check if the first bit is set (it is) to see if we should negate it, then we shift all bits right once. Now, `value` will be `0` and `negate` will be `true`. So, we'd return `-0`. Which is a bug! `-0` isn't `-2147483648`, and we've broken a round trip. Second, encoding any number with the 31st bit set, we'd return the opposite sign. Let's use `1073741824`. Encoding, we get `"ggggggC"`. When decoding, we get the value `-2147483648` after reading the base64. Notice, it's already negative (the 32nd bit is set, because the 31st was set and we shifted everything left once). We'd then check the first bit (it's not) and shift right. But we used `>>`, which does not shift the sign bit. We actually wanted `>>>`, which will. Because of that bug, we get back `-1073741824` instead of the positive `1073741824`. It's even worse if the 32nd and 31st bits are set, `-1610612736` becomes `536870912` after a round trip. I recently fixed the same two bugs in Closure Compiler: google/closure-compiler@584418eb PR-URL: #31490 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Coe <bencoe@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <me@gus.host>
codebytere pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 17, 2020
These both have to do with extremely large numbers, so it's unlikely to cause a problem in practice. Still, correctness. First, encoding `-2147483648` in VLQ returns the value `"B"`. When decoding, we get the value `1` after reading the base64. We then check if the first bit is set (it is) to see if we should negate it, then we shift all bits right once. Now, `value` will be `0` and `negate` will be `true`. So, we'd return `-0`. Which is a bug! `-0` isn't `-2147483648`, and we've broken a round trip. Second, encoding any number with the 31st bit set, we'd return the opposite sign. Let's use `1073741824`. Encoding, we get `"ggggggC"`. When decoding, we get the value `-2147483648` after reading the base64. Notice, it's already negative (the 32nd bit is set, because the 31st was set and we shifted everything left once). We'd then check the first bit (it's not) and shift right. But we used `>>`, which does not shift the sign bit. We actually wanted `>>>`, which will. Because of that bug, we get back `-1073741824` instead of the positive `1073741824`. It's even worse if the 32nd and 31st bits are set, `-1610612736` becomes `536870912` after a round trip. I recently fixed the same two bugs in Closure Compiler: google/closure-compiler@584418eb PR-URL: #31490 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Coe <bencoe@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <me@gus.host>
Merged
targos
commented
Apr 18, 2020
Member
Depends on #31132 to land on v12.x |
targos pushed a commit
to targos/node
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2020
These both have to do with extremely large numbers, so it's unlikely to cause a problem in practice. Still, correctness. First, encoding `-2147483648` in VLQ returns the value `"B"`. When decoding, we get the value `1` after reading the base64. We then check if the first bit is set (it is) to see if we should negate it, then we shift all bits right once. Now, `value` will be `0` and `negate` will be `true`. So, we'd return `-0`. Which is a bug! `-0` isn't `-2147483648`, and we've broken a round trip. Second, encoding any number with the 31st bit set, we'd return the opposite sign. Let's use `1073741824`. Encoding, we get `"ggggggC"`. When decoding, we get the value `-2147483648` after reading the base64. Notice, it's already negative (the 32nd bit is set, because the 31st was set and we shifted everything left once). We'd then check the first bit (it's not) and shift right. But we used `>>`, which does not shift the sign bit. We actually wanted `>>>`, which will. Because of that bug, we get back `-1073741824` instead of the positive `1073741824`. It's even worse if the 32nd and 31st bits are set, `-1610612736` becomes `536870912` after a round trip. I recently fixed the same two bugs in Closure Compiler: google/closure-compiler@584418eb PR-URL: nodejs#31490 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Coe <bencoe@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <me@gus.host>
targos pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2020
These both have to do with extremely large numbers, so it's unlikely to cause a problem in practice. Still, correctness. First, encoding `-2147483648` in VLQ returns the value `"B"`. When decoding, we get the value `1` after reading the base64. We then check if the first bit is set (it is) to see if we should negate it, then we shift all bits right once. Now, `value` will be `0` and `negate` will be `true`. So, we'd return `-0`. Which is a bug! `-0` isn't `-2147483648`, and we've broken a round trip. Second, encoding any number with the 31st bit set, we'd return the opposite sign. Let's use `1073741824`. Encoding, we get `"ggggggC"`. When decoding, we get the value `-2147483648` after reading the base64. Notice, it's already negative (the 32nd bit is set, because the 31st was set and we shifted everything left once). We'd then check the first bit (it's not) and shift right. But we used `>>`, which does not shift the sign bit. We actually wanted `>>>`, which will. Because of that bug, we get back `-1073741824` instead of the positive `1073741824`. It's even worse if the 32nd and 31st bits are set, `-1610612736` becomes `536870912` after a round trip. I recently fixed the same two bugs in Closure Compiler: google/closure-compiler@584418eb PR-URL: #31490 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Coe <bencoe@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: David Carlier <devnexen@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gus Caplan <me@gus.host>
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
10 participants
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.
These both have to do with extremely large numbers, so it's unlikely to cause a problem in practice. Still, correctness.
First, encoding
-2147483648in VLQ returns the value"B". When decoding, we get the value1after reading the base64. We then check if the first bit is set (it is) to see if we should negate it, then we shift all bits right once. Now,valuewill be0andnegatewill betrue. So, we'd return-0. Which is a bug!-0isn't-2147483648, and we've broken a round trip.Second, encoding any number with the 31st bit set, we'd return the opposite sign. Let's use
1073741824. Encoding, we get"ggggggC". When decoding, we get the value-2147483648after reading the base64. Notice, it's already negative (the 32nd bit is set, because the 31st was set and we shifted everything left once). We'd then check the first bit (it's not) and shift right. But we used>>, which does not shift the sign bit. We actually wanted>>>, which will. Because of that bug, we get back-1073741824instead of the positive1073741824. It's even worse if the 32nd and 31st bits are set,-1610612736becomes536870912after a round trip.I recently fixed the same two bugs in Closure Compiler: google/closure-compiler@584418eb
/cc @bcoe
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passes