/[pcre]/code/trunk/ChangeLog
ViewVC logotype

Diff of /code/trunk/ChangeLog

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log | View Patch Patch

revision 1523 by ph10, Sun Feb 8 18:00:45 2015 UTC revision 1574 by zherczeg, Tue Jun 30 07:13:23 2015 UTC
# Line 1  Line 1 
1  ChangeLog for PCRE  ChangeLog for PCRE
2  ------------------  ------------------
3    
4  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015  Note that the PCRE 8.xx series (PCRE1) is now in a bugfix-only state. All
5    development is happening in the PCRE2 10.xx series.
6    
7    Version 8.38 xx-xxx-xxxx
8  ------------------------  ------------------------
9    
10  1.  When an (*ACCEPT) is triggered inside capturing parentheses, it arranges  1.  If a group that contained a recursive back reference also contained a
11      for those parentheses to be closed with whatever has been captured so far.      forward reference subroutine call followed by a non-forward-reference
12      However, it was failing to mark any other groups between the hightest      subroutine call, for example /.((?2)(?R)\1)()/, pcre2_compile() failed to
13      capture so far and the currrent group as "unset". Thus, the ovector for      compile correct code, leading to undefined behaviour or an internally
14      those groups contained whatever was previously there. An example is the      detected error. This bug was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
     pattern /(x)|((*ACCEPT))/ when matched against "abcd".  
15    
16  2.  If an assertion condition was quantified with a minimum of zero (an odd  2.  Quantification of certain items (e.g. atomic back references) could cause
17      thing to do, but it happened), SIGSEGV or other misbehaviour could occur.      incorrect code to be compiled when recursive forward references were
18        involved. For example, in this pattern: /(?1)()((((((\1++))\x85)+)|))/.
19        This bug was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
20    
21  3.  If a pattern in pcretest input had the P (POSIX) modifier followed by an  3.  A repeated conditional group whose condition was a reference by name caused
22      unrecognized modifier, a crash could occur.      a buffer overflow if there was more than one group with the given name.
23        This bug was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
24    
25  4.  An attempt to do global matching in pcretest with a zero-length ovector  4.  A recursive back reference by name within a group that had the same name as
26      caused a crash.      another group caused a buffer overflow. For example:
27        /(?J)(?'d'(?'d'\g{d}))/. This bug was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
28    
29    5.  A forward reference by name to a group whose number is the same as the
30        current group, for example in this pattern: /(?|(\k'Pm')|(?'Pm'))/, caused
31        a buffer overflow at compile time. This bug was discovered by the LLVM
32        fuzzer.
33    
34    6.  A lookbehind assertion within a set of mutually recursive subpatterns could
35        provoke a buffer overflow. This bug was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
36    
37    7.  Another buffer overflow bug involved duplicate named groups with a
38        reference between their definition, with a group that reset capture
39        numbers, for example: /(?J:(?|(?'R')(\k'R')|((?'R'))))/. This has been
40        fixed by always allowing for more memory, even if not needed. (A proper fix
41        is implemented in PCRE2, but it involves more refactoring.)
42    
43    8.  There was no check for integer overflow in subroutine calls such as (?123).
44    
45    9.  The table entry for \l in EBCDIC environments was incorrect, leading to its
46        being treated as a literal 'l' instead of causing an error.
47    
48    10. There was a buffer overflow if pcre_exec() was called with an ovector of
49        size 1. This bug was found by american fuzzy lop.
50    
51    11. If a non-capturing group containing a conditional group that could match
52        an empty string was repeated, it was not identified as matching an empty
53        string itself. For example: /^(?:(?(1)x|)+)+$()/.
54    
55    12. In an EBCDIC environment, pcretest was mishandling the escape sequences
56        \a and \e in test subject lines.
57    
58    13. In an EBCDIC environment, \a in a pattern was converted to the ASCII
59        instead of the EBCDIC value.
60    
61    14. The handling of \c in an EBCDIC environment has been revised so that it is
62        now compatible with the specification in Perl's perlebcdic page.
63    
64    15. The EBCDIC character 0x41 is a non-breaking space, equivalent to 0xa0 in
65        ASCII/Unicode. This has now been added to the list of characters that are
66        recognized as white space in EBCDIC.
67    
68    16. When PCRE was compiled without UCP support, the use of \p and \P gave an
69        error (correctly) when used outside a class, but did not give an error
70        within a class.
71    
72    17. \h within a class was incorrectly compiled in EBCDIC environments.
73    
74    18. A pattern with an unmatched closing parenthesis that contained a backward
75        assertion which itself contained a forward reference caused buffer
76        overflow. And example pattern is: /(?=di(?<=(?1))|(?=(.))))/.
77    
78    19. JIT should return with error when the compiled pattern requires more stack
79        space than the maximum.
80    
81    
82    Version 8.37 28-April-2015
83    --------------------------
84    
85    1.  When an (*ACCEPT) is triggered inside capturing parentheses, it arranges
86        for those parentheses to be closed with whatever has been captured so far.
87        However, it was failing to mark any other groups between the hightest
88        capture so far and the currrent group as "unset". Thus, the ovector for
89        those groups contained whatever was previously there. An example is the
90        pattern /(x)|((*ACCEPT))/ when matched against "abcd".
91    
92    2.  If an assertion condition was quantified with a minimum of zero (an odd
93        thing to do, but it happened), SIGSEGV or other misbehaviour could occur.
94    
95    3.  If a pattern in pcretest input had the P (POSIX) modifier followed by an
96        unrecognized modifier, a crash could occur.
97    
98    4.  An attempt to do global matching in pcretest with a zero-length ovector
99        caused a crash.
100    
101  5.  Fixed a memory leak during matching that could occur for a subpattern  5.  Fixed a memory leak during matching that could occur for a subpattern
102      subroutine call (recursive or otherwise) if the number of captured groups      subroutine call (recursive or otherwise) if the number of captured groups
103      that had to be saved was greater than ten.      that had to be saved was greater than ten.
104    
105  6.  Catch a bad opcode during auto-possessification after compiling a bad UTF  6.  Catch a bad opcode during auto-possessification after compiling a bad UTF
106      string with NO_UTF_CHECK. This is a tidyup, not a bug fix, as passing bad      string with NO_UTF_CHECK. This is a tidyup, not a bug fix, as passing bad
107      UTF with NO_UTF_CHECK is documented as having an undefined outcome.      UTF with NO_UTF_CHECK is documented as having an undefined outcome.
108    
109  7.  A UTF pattern containing a "not" match of a non-ASCII character and a  7.  A UTF pattern containing a "not" match of a non-ASCII character and a
110      subroutine reference could loop at compile time. Example: /[^\xff]((?1))/.      subroutine reference could loop at compile time. Example: /[^\xff]((?1))/.
111    
# Line 41  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015 Line 119  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015
119     was no other kind of back reference (a situation which is probably quite     was no other kind of back reference (a situation which is probably quite
120     rare). The effect of the bug was that the condition was always treated as     rare). The effect of the bug was that the condition was always treated as
121     FALSE when the capture could not be consulted, leading to a incorrect     FALSE when the capture could not be consulted, leading to a incorrect
122     behaviour by pcre2_match(). This bug has been fixed.     behaviour by pcre_exec(). This bug has been fixed.
123    
124  9. A reference to a duplicated named group (either a back reference or a test  9. A reference to a duplicated named group (either a back reference or a test
125     for being set in a conditional) that occurred in a part of the pattern where     for being set in a conditional) that occurred in a part of the pattern where
# Line 61  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015 Line 139  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015
139      so the above pattern is faulted by Perl. PCRE has now been changed so that      so the above pattern is faulted by Perl. PCRE has now been changed so that
140      it also rejects such patterns.      it also rejects such patterns.
141    
142    12. A possessive capturing group such as (a)*+ with a minimum repeat of zero
143        failed to allow the zero-repeat case if pcre2_exec() was called with an
144        ovector too small to capture the group.
145    
146    13. Fixed two bugs in pcretest that were discovered by fuzzing and reported by
147        Red Hat Product Security:
148    
149        (a) A crash if /K and /F were both set with the option to save the compiled
150        pattern.
151    
152        (b) Another crash if the option to print captured substrings in a callout
153        was combined with setting a null ovector, for example \O\C+ as a subject
154        string.
155    
156    14. A pattern such as "((?2){0,1999}())?", which has a group containing a
157        forward reference repeated a large (but limited) number of times within a
158        repeated outer group that has a zero minimum quantifier, caused incorrect
159        code to be compiled, leading to the error "internal error:
160        previously-checked referenced subpattern not found" when an incorrect
161        memory address was read. This bug was reported as "heap overflow",
162        discovered by Kai Lu of Fortinet's FortiGuard Labs and given the CVE number
163        CVE-2015-2325.
164    
165    23. A pattern such as "((?+1)(\1))/" containing a forward reference subroutine
166        call within a group that also contained a recursive back reference caused
167        incorrect code to be compiled. This bug was reported as "heap overflow",
168        discovered by Kai Lu of Fortinet's FortiGuard Labs, and given the CVE
169        number CVE-2015-2326.
170    
171    24. Computing the size of the JIT read-only data in advance has been a source
172        of various issues, and new ones are still appear unfortunately. To fix
173        existing and future issues, size computation is eliminated from the code,
174        and replaced by on-demand memory allocation.
175    
176    25. A pattern such as /(?i)[A-`]/, where characters in the other case are
177        adjacent to the end of the range, and the range contained characters with
178        more than one other case, caused incorrect behaviour when compiled in UTF
179        mode. In that example, the range a-j was left out of the class.
180    
181    26. Fix JIT compilation of conditional blocks, which assertion
182        is converted to (*FAIL). E.g: /(?(?!))/.
183    
184    27. The pattern /(?(?!)^)/ caused references to random memory. This bug was
185        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
186    
187    28. The assertion (?!) is optimized to (*FAIL). This was not handled correctly
188        when this assertion was used as a condition, for example (?(?!)a|b). In
189        pcre2_match() it worked by luck; in pcre2_dfa_match() it gave an incorrect
190        error about an unsupported item.
191    
192    29. For some types of pattern, for example /Z*(|d*){216}/, the auto-
193        possessification code could take exponential time to complete. A recursion
194        depth limit of 1000 has been imposed to limit the resources used by this
195        optimization.
196    
197    30. A pattern such as /(*UTF)[\S\V\H]/, which contains a negated special class
198        such as \S in non-UCP mode, explicit wide characters (> 255) can be ignored
199        because \S ensures they are all in the class. The code for doing this was
200        interacting badly with the code for computing the amount of space needed to
201        compile the pattern, leading to a buffer overflow. This bug was discovered
202        by the LLVM fuzzer.
203    
204    31. A pattern such as /((?2)+)((?1))/ which has mutual recursion nested inside
205        other kinds of group caused stack overflow at compile time. This bug was
206        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
207    
208    32. A pattern such as /(?1)(?#?'){8}(a)/ which had a parenthesized comment
209        between a subroutine call and its quantifier was incorrectly compiled,
210        leading to buffer overflow or other errors. This bug was discovered by the
211        LLVM fuzzer.
212    
213    33. The illegal pattern /(?(?<E>.*!.*)?)/ was not being diagnosed as missing an
214        assertion after (?(. The code was failing to check the character after
215        (?(?< for the ! or = that would indicate a lookbehind assertion. This bug
216        was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
217    
218    34. A pattern such as /X((?2)()*+){2}+/ which has a possessive quantifier with
219        a fixed maximum following a group that contains a subroutine reference was
220        incorrectly compiled and could trigger buffer overflow. This bug was
221        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
222    
223    35. A mutual recursion within a lookbehind assertion such as (?<=((?2))((?1)))
224        caused a stack overflow instead of the diagnosis of a non-fixed length
225        lookbehind assertion. This bug was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
226    
227    36. The use of \K in a positive lookbehind assertion in a non-anchored pattern
228        (e.g. /(?<=\Ka)/) could make pcregrep loop.
229    
230    37. There was a similar problem to 36 in pcretest for global matches.
231    
232    38. If a greedy quantified \X was preceded by \C in UTF mode (e.g. \C\X*),
233        and a subsequent item in the pattern caused a non-match, backtracking over
234        the repeated \X did not stop, but carried on past the start of the subject,
235        causing reference to random memory and/or a segfault. There were also some
236        other cases where backtracking after \C could crash. This set of bugs was
237        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
238    
239    39. The function for finding the minimum length of a matching string could take
240        a very long time if mutual recursion was present many times in a pattern,
241        for example, /((?2){73}(?2))((?1))/. A better mutual recursion detection
242        method has been implemented. This infelicity was discovered by the LLVM
243        fuzzer.
244    
245    40. Static linking against the PCRE library using the pkg-config module was
246        failing on missing pthread symbols.
247    
248    
249  Version 8.36 26-September-2014  Version 8.36 26-September-2014
250  ------------------------------  ------------------------------

Legend:
Removed from v.1523  
changed lines
  Added in v.1574

  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.5