| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Translations and doc/xz-file-format.txt and doc/lzma-file-format.txt
were not touched.
COPYING.0BSD was added.
|
|
In the C99 and C17 standards, section 6.5.6 paragraph 8 means that
adding 0 to a null pointer is undefined behavior. As of writing,
"clang -fsanitize=undefined" (Clang 15) diagnoses this. However,
I'm not aware of any compiler that would take advantage of this
when optimizing (Clang 15 included). It's good to avoid this anyway
since compilers might some day infer that pointer arithmetic implies
that the pointer is not NULL. That is, the following foo() would then
unconditionally return 0, even for foo(NULL, 0):
void bar(char *a, char *b);
int foo(char *a, size_t n)
{
bar(a, a + n);
return a == NULL;
}
In contrast to C, C++ explicitly allows null pointer + 0. So if
the above is compiled as C++ then there is no undefined behavior
in the foo(NULL, 0) call.
To me it seems that changing the C standard would be the sane
thing to do (just add one sentence) as it would ensure that a huge
amount of old code won't break in the future. Based on web searches
it seems that a large number of codebases (where null pointer + 0
occurs) are being fixed instead to be future-proof in case compilers
will some day optimize based on it (like making the above foo(NULL, 0)
return 0) which in the worst case will cause security bugs.
Some projects don't plan to change it. For example, gnulib and thus
many GNU tools currently require that null pointer + 0 is defined:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2021-11/msg00000.html
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Other-portability-assumptions.html
In XZ Utils null pointer + 0 issue should be fixed after this
commit. This adds a few if-statements and thus branches to avoid
null pointer + 0. These check for size > 0 instead of ptr != NULL
because this way bugs where size > 0 && ptr == NULL will likely
get caught quickly. None of them are in hot spots so it shouldn't
matter for performance.
A little less readable version would be replacing
ptr + offset
with
offset != 0 ? ptr + offset : ptr
or creating a macro for it:
#define my_ptr_add(ptr, offset) \
((offset) != 0 ? ((ptr) + (offset)) : (ptr))
Checking for offset != 0 instead of ptr != NULL allows GCC >= 8.1,
Clang >= 7, and Clang-based ICX to optimize it to the very same code
as ptr + offset. That is, it won't create a branch. So for hot code
this could be a good solution to avoid null pointer + 0. Unfortunately
other compilers like ICC 2021 or MSVC 19.33 (VS2022) will create a
branch from my_ptr_add().
Thanks to Marcin Kowalczyk for reporting the problem:
https://github.com/tukaani-project/xz/issues/36
|
|
This reverts commit 177bdc922cb17bd0fd831ab8139dfae912a5c2b8
and also does equivalent change to arm64.c.
Now that ARM64 filter will use lzma_options_bcj, this change
is not needed anymore.
|
|
This will be needed for the ARM64 BCJ filter as it will use
its own options struct.
|
|
I should have always known this but I didn't. Here is an example
as a reminder to myself:
int mycopy(void *dest, void *src, size_t n)
{
memcpy(dest, src, n);
return dest == NULL;
}
In the example, a compiler may assume that dest != NULL because
passing NULL to memcpy() would be undefined behavior. Testing
with GCC 8.2.1, mycopy(NULL, NULL, 0) returns 1 with -O0 and -O1.
With -O2 the return value is 0 because the compiler infers that
dest cannot be NULL because it was already used with memcpy()
and thus the test for NULL gets optimized out.
In liblzma, if a null-pointer was passed to memcpy(), there were
no checks for NULL *after* the memcpy() call, so I cautiously
suspect that it shouldn't have caused bad behavior in practice,
but it's hard to be sure, and the problematic cases had to be
fixed anyway.
Thanks to Jeffrey Walton.
|
|
Only one definition was visible in a translation unit.
It avoided a few casts and temp variables but seems that
this hack doesn't work with link-time optimizations in compilers
as it's not C99/C11 compliant.
Fixes:
http://www.mail-archive.com/xz-devel@tukaani.org/msg00279.html
|
|
There is a tiny risk of causing breakage: If an application
assigns lzma_stream.allocator to a non-const pointer, such
code won't compile anymore. I don't know why anyone would do
such a thing though, so in practice this shouldn't cause trouble.
Thanks to Jan Kratochvil for the patch.
|
|
lzma_code() could incorrectly return LZMA_BUF_ERROR if
all of the following was true:
- The caller knows how many bytes of output to expect
and only provides that much output space.
- When the last output bytes are decoded, the
caller-provided input buffer ends right before
the LZMA2 end of payload marker. So LZMA2 won't
provide more output anymore, but it won't know it
yet and thus won't return LZMA_STREAM_END yet.
- A BCJ filter is in use and it hasn't left any
unfiltered bytes in the temp buffer. This can happen
with any BCJ filter, but in practice it's more likely
with filters other than the x86 BCJ.
Another situation where the bug can be triggered happens
if the uncompressed size is zero bytes and no output space
is provided. In this case the decompression can fail even
if the whole input file is given to lzma_code().
A similar bug was fixed in XZ Embedded on 2011-09-19.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to Jonathan Nieder.
|
|
Originally the idea was that using LZMA_FULL_FLUSH
with Stream encoder would read the filter chain
from the same array that was used to intialize the
Stream encoder. Since most apps wouldn't use
LZMA_FULL_FLUSH, most apps wouldn't need to keep
the filter chain available after initializing the
Stream encoder. However, due to my mistake, it
actually required keeping the array always available.
Since setting the new filter chain via the array
used at initialization time is not a nice way to do
it for a couple of reasons, this commit ditches it
and introduces lzma_filters_update(). This new function
replaces also the "persistent" flag used by LZMA2
(and to-be-designed Subblock filter), which was also
an ugly thing to do.
Thanks to Alexey Tourbin for reminding me about the problem
that Stream encoder used to require keeping the filter
chain allocated.
|
|
This is a quick and slightly dirty fix to make the code
conform to the latest file format specification. Without
this patch, it's possible to make corrupt files by
specifying start offset that is not a multiple of the
filter's alignment. Custom start offset is almost never
used, so this was only a minor bug.
The xz command line tool doesn't validate the start offset,
so one will get a bit unclear error message if trying to use
an invalid start offset.
|
|
Some minor documentation cleanups were made at the same time.
|
|
The internal implementation is still using the name "simple".
It may need some cleanups, so I look at it later.
|
|
- LZMA_VLI_VALUE_MAX -> LZMA_VLI_MAX
- LZMA_VLI_VALUE_UNKNOWN -> LZMA_VLI_UNKNOWN
- LZMA_HEADER_ERRRO -> LZMA_OPTIONS_ERROR
|
|
broken. API has changed a lot and it will still change a
little more here and there. The command line tool doesn't
have all the required changes to reflect the API changes, so
it's easy to get "internal error" or trigger assertions.
|
|
specification. Simplify things by removing most of the
support for known uncompressed size in most places.
There are some miscellaneous changes here and there too.
The API of liblzma has got many changes and still some
more will be done soon. While most of the code has been
updated, some things are not fixed (the command line tool
will choke with invalid filter chain, if nothing else).
Subblock filter is somewhat broken for now. It will be
updated once the encoded format of the Subblock filter
has been decided.
|
|
of the so called simple filters. If there is demand, limited
support for LZMA_SYNC_FLUSH may be added in future.
After this commit, using LZMA_SYNC_FLUSH shouldn't cause
undefined behavior in any situation.
|
|
It's not strictly needed there, and just complicates the
code. LZ encoder never even had this feature.
The primary reason to have uncompressed size tracking in
filter encoders was validating that the application
doesn't give different amount of input that it had
promised. A side effect was to validate internal workings
of liblzma.
Uncompressed size tracking is still present in the Block
encoder. Maybe it should be added to LZMA_Alone and raw
encoders too. It's simpler to have one coder just to
validate the uncompressed size instead of having it
in every filter.
|
|
|
