buffer: validate list elements in Buffer.concat by targos · Pull Request #4951 · nodejs/node

targos · 2016-01-29T13:00:54Z

buffer: validate list elements in Buffer.concat

Without this change, if any of the elements in the list to be concatenated
is not a Buffer instance, the method fails with "buf.copy is not a function".
Make an instanceof check before using the copy method so that we can throw
a with a better message.

Fixes: #4949

thefourtheye · 2016-01-29T13:30:31Z

Or Buffer.isBuffer?

I chose instanceof for consistency (Buffer.isBuffer is never used in this file).

I was suggesting that because, if we change how we detect Buffers (which will be implemented in isBuffer) later on, then we don't have to change this line.

OK, I changed it.

cjihrig · 2016-01-29T15:42:27Z

LGTM with one comment.

thefourtheye · 2016-01-29T15:58:22Z

LGTM with cjihrig's comment

targos · 2016-01-29T16:05:18Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/1978/

targos · 2016-01-29T16:06:23Z

Marking semver-major because of the error message change.

cjihrig · 2016-01-29T16:09:40Z

I'm not sure I would classify this as semver-major. This isn't a change to an existing error message. Every bug fix is technically a behavior change.

targos · 2016-01-29T16:13:54Z

I agree with you. Then it would be a candidate for LTS ?

thefourtheye · 2016-01-29T16:16:33Z

Overall, This looks to me as just an error message change. Does this qualify for backporting? @jasnell @thealphanerd

cjihrig · 2016-01-29T16:33:48Z

The existing code was already checking for an array, and throwing this same error. It was a bug on our part that we didn't do adequate checking.

r-52 · 2016-01-30T14:06:05Z

LGTM

Without this change, if any of the elements in the list to be concatenated is not a Buffer instance, the method fails with "buf.copy is not a function". Make an isBuffer check before using the copy method so that we can throw with a better message. Fixes: nodejs#4949 PR-URL: nodejs#4951 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Roman Klauke <romaaan.git@gmail.com>

rvagg · 2016-02-08T11:55:42Z

@nodejs/lts this commit adds a new error string "list" argument must be an Array of Buffers, in addition to an existing list argument must be an Array of Buffers on everything but master due to a semver-major change to error messages. To remain consistent with the existing error message and to not introduce a new one that's different to the existing by two " characters, this commit should be changed to remove the "'s from lib/buffer.js as well as test/parallel/test-buffer-concat.js when cherry-picking.

Without this change, if any of the elements in the list to be concatenated is not a Buffer instance, the method fails with "buf.copy is not a function". Make an isBuffer check before using the copy method so that we can throw with a better message. Fixes: #4949 PR-URL: #4951 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Roman Klauke <romaaan.git@gmail.com>

trevnorris · 2016-02-09T09:44:22Z

@rvagg in that case shouldn't it just be changed in master as well? seems strange to only change it on cherry-pick.

rvagg · 2016-02-09T11:45:46Z

@trevnorris no because master has a change that unifies all error messages, giving them consistent formatting. So what's in this is correct and nice and consistent with the rest of the codebase but that's not true of v5.x and v4.x where we need to be internally consistent with this particular file and this particular function.

rvagg · 2016-02-09T11:46:41Z

#3374 thar it is, I think there may be more work ontop of that as well

rvagg · 2016-02-11T09:52:02Z

Removed lts-watch-v4.x, this is breaking in userland, see rvagg/bl#26, moscajs/mosca#412

targos · 2016-02-12T07:18:11Z

Should we label it as dont-land-on-v4.x then ?

rvagg · 2016-02-15T00:46:10Z

sure, done, but tbh I'm not sure if that's even used, @thealphanerd can you clarify how we should be using lts-watch-v4.x and/or dont-land-on-v4.x?

MylesBorins · 2016-02-15T03:32:29Z

@rvagg we definitely use dont-land-on-v4.x

lts-watch is applied when a PR needs to be reviewed
land-on is applied when a commit is in staging but not in a release
landed is applied when a commit has landed in a release

dont-land is added when we know a commit will not be backported. dont-land is particularly useful when doing audits of master to make sure we didn't miss anything

Without this change, if any of the elements in the list to be concatenated is not a Buffer instance, the method fails with "buf.copy is not a function". Make an isBuffer check before using the copy method so that we can throw with a better message. Fixes: nodejs#4949 PR-URL: nodejs#4951 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Roman Klauke <romaaan.git@gmail.com>

targos added the buffer Issues and PRs related to the buffer subsystem. label Jan 29, 2016

thefourtheye reviewed Jan 29, 2016
View reviewed changes

targos force-pushed the node-4949 branch from 754e514 to 241a21eCompare January 29, 2016 16:04

targos added the semver-major PRs that contain breaking changes and should be released in the next major version. label Jan 29, 2016

targos added lts-watch-v4.x and removed semver-major PRs that contain breaking changes and should be released in the next major version. labels Jan 29, 2016

targos force-pushed the node-4949 branch from 241a21e to d2dc234Compare January 31, 2016 08:34

targos merged commit d2dc234 into nodejs:masterJan 31, 2016

targos deleted the node-4949 branch January 31, 2016 08:36

rvagg mentioned this pull request Feb 8, 2016
Release proposal: v5.5.1 (Stable) #5141
Closed

Nibbler999 mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2016
Avoid leaving an empty buffer on complete consume rvagg/bl#25
Closed

This was referenced Feb 10, 2016
Broken on node v5.6.0 rvagg/bl#26
Closed
Mosca crashes when publishing Message with retain-option from MQTT.js moscajs/mosca#412
Closed

rvagg removed the lts-watch-v4.x label Feb 11, 2016

rvagg added the dont-land-on-v4.x label Feb 15, 2016

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

targos commented Jan 29, 2016

Uh oh!

thefourtheyeJan 29, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

targosJan 29, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thefourtheyeJan 29, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

targosJan 29, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cjihrig commented Jan 29, 2016

Uh oh!

thefourtheye commented Jan 29, 2016

Uh oh!

targos commented Jan 29, 2016

Uh oh!

targos commented Jan 29, 2016

Uh oh!

cjihrig commented Jan 29, 2016

Uh oh!

targos commented Jan 29, 2016

Uh oh!

thefourtheye commented Jan 29, 2016

Uh oh!

cjihrig commented Jan 29, 2016

Uh oh!

r-52 commented Jan 30, 2016

Uh oh!

rvagg commented Feb 8, 2016

Uh oh!

trevnorris commented Feb 9, 2016

Uh oh!

rvagg commented Feb 9, 2016

Uh oh!

rvagg commented Feb 9, 2016

Uh oh!

rvagg commented Feb 11, 2016

Uh oh!

targos commented Feb 12, 2016

Uh oh!

rvagg commented Feb 15, 2016

Uh oh!

MylesBorins commented Feb 15, 2016

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants