ViewVC logotype

Diff of /code/trunk/ChangeLog

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

revision 1504 by ph10, Fri Sep 26 09:21:46 2014 UTC revision 1553 by ph10, Tue Apr 28 11:36:24 2015 UTC
# Line 1  Line 1 
1  ChangeLog for PCRE  ChangeLog for PCRE
2  ------------------  ------------------
4    Version 8.37 28-April-2015
5    --------------------------
7    1.  When an (*ACCEPT) is triggered inside capturing parentheses, it arranges
8        for those parentheses to be closed with whatever has been captured so far.
9        However, it was failing to mark any other groups between the hightest
10        capture so far and the currrent group as "unset". Thus, the ovector for
11        those groups contained whatever was previously there. An example is the
12        pattern /(x)|((*ACCEPT))/ when matched against "abcd".
14    2.  If an assertion condition was quantified with a minimum of zero (an odd
15        thing to do, but it happened), SIGSEGV or other misbehaviour could occur.
17    3.  If a pattern in pcretest input had the P (POSIX) modifier followed by an
18        unrecognized modifier, a crash could occur.
20    4.  An attempt to do global matching in pcretest with a zero-length ovector
21        caused a crash.
23    5.  Fixed a memory leak during matching that could occur for a subpattern
24        subroutine call (recursive or otherwise) if the number of captured groups
25        that had to be saved was greater than ten.
27    6.  Catch a bad opcode during auto-possessification after compiling a bad UTF
28        string with NO_UTF_CHECK. This is a tidyup, not a bug fix, as passing bad
29        UTF with NO_UTF_CHECK is documented as having an undefined outcome.
31    7.  A UTF pattern containing a "not" match of a non-ASCII character and a
32        subroutine reference could loop at compile time. Example: /[^\xff]((?1))/.
34    8. When a pattern is compiled, it remembers the highest back reference so that
35       when matching, if the ovector is too small, extra memory can be obtained to
36       use instead. A conditional subpattern whose condition is a check on a
37       capture having happened, such as, for example in the pattern
38       /^(?:(a)|b)(?(1)A|B)/, is another kind of back reference, but it was not
39       setting the highest backreference number. This mattered only if pcre_exec()
40       was called with an ovector that was too small to hold the capture, and there
41       was no other kind of back reference (a situation which is probably quite
42       rare). The effect of the bug was that the condition was always treated as
43       FALSE when the capture could not be consulted, leading to a incorrect
44       behaviour by pcre_exec(). This bug has been fixed.
46    9. A reference to a duplicated named group (either a back reference or a test
47       for being set in a conditional) that occurred in a part of the pattern where
48       PCRE_DUPNAMES was not set caused the amount of memory needed for the pattern
49       to be incorrectly calculated, leading to overwriting.
51    10. A mutually recursive set of back references such as (\2)(\1) caused a
52        segfault at study time (while trying to find the minimum matching length).
53        The infinite loop is now broken (with the minimum length unset, that is,
54        zero).
56    11. If an assertion that was used as a condition was quantified with a minimum
57        of zero, matching went wrong. In particular, if the whole group had
58        unlimited repetition and could match an empty string, a segfault was
59        likely. The pattern (?(?=0)?)+ is an example that caused this. Perl allows
60        assertions to be quantified, but not if they are being used as conditions,
61        so the above pattern is faulted by Perl. PCRE has now been changed so that
62        it also rejects such patterns.
64    12. A possessive capturing group such as (a)*+ with a minimum repeat of zero
65        failed to allow the zero-repeat case if pcre2_exec() was called with an
66        ovector too small to capture the group.
68    13. Fixed two bugs in pcretest that were discovered by fuzzing and reported by
69        Red Hat Product Security:
71        (a) A crash if /K and /F were both set with the option to save the compiled
72        pattern.
74        (b) Another crash if the option to print captured substrings in a callout
75        was combined with setting a null ovector, for example \O\C+ as a subject
76        string.
78    14. A pattern such as "((?2){0,1999}())?", which has a group containing a
79        forward reference repeated a large (but limited) number of times within a
80        repeated outer group that has a zero minimum quantifier, caused incorrect
81        code to be compiled, leading to the error "internal error:
82        previously-checked referenced subpattern not found" when an incorrect
83        memory address was read. This bug was reported as "heap overflow",
84        discovered by Kai Lu of Fortinet's FortiGuard Labs and given the CVE number
85        CVE-2015-2325.
87    23. A pattern such as "((?+1)(\1))/" containing a forward reference subroutine
88        call within a group that also contained a recursive back reference caused
89        incorrect code to be compiled. This bug was reported as "heap overflow",
90        discovered by Kai Lu of Fortinet's FortiGuard Labs, and given the CVE
91        number CVE-2015-2326.
93    24. Computing the size of the JIT read-only data in advance has been a source
94        of various issues, and new ones are still appear unfortunately. To fix
95        existing and future issues, size computation is eliminated from the code,
96        and replaced by on-demand memory allocation.
98    25. A pattern such as /(?i)[A-`]/, where characters in the other case are
99        adjacent to the end of the range, and the range contained characters with
100        more than one other case, caused incorrect behaviour when compiled in UTF
101        mode. In that example, the range a-j was left out of the class.
103    26. Fix JIT compilation of conditional blocks, which assertion
104        is converted to (*FAIL). E.g: /(?(?!))/.
106    27. The pattern /(?(?!)^)/ caused references to random memory. This bug was
107        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
109    28. The assertion (?!) is optimized to (*FAIL). This was not handled correctly
110        when this assertion was used as a condition, for example (?(?!)a|b). In
111        pcre2_match() it worked by luck; in pcre2_dfa_match() it gave an incorrect
112        error about an unsupported item.
114    29. For some types of pattern, for example /Z*(|d*){216}/, the auto-
115        possessification code could take exponential time to complete. A recursion
116        depth limit of 1000 has been imposed to limit the resources used by this
117        optimization.
119    30. A pattern such as /(*UTF)[\S\V\H]/, which contains a negated special class
120        such as \S in non-UCP mode, explicit wide characters (> 255) can be ignored
121        because \S ensures they are all in the class. The code for doing this was
122        interacting badly with the code for computing the amount of space needed to
123        compile the pattern, leading to a buffer overflow. This bug was discovered
124        by the LLVM fuzzer.
126    31. A pattern such as /((?2)+)((?1))/ which has mutual recursion nested inside
127        other kinds of group caused stack overflow at compile time. This bug was
128        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
130    32. A pattern such as /(?1)(?#?'){8}(a)/ which had a parenthesized comment
131        between a subroutine call and its quantifier was incorrectly compiled,
132        leading to buffer overflow or other errors. This bug was discovered by the
133        LLVM fuzzer.
135    33. The illegal pattern /(?(?<E>.*!.*)?)/ was not being diagnosed as missing an
136        assertion after (?(. The code was failing to check the character after
137        (?(?< for the ! or = that would indicate a lookbehind assertion. This bug
138        was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
140    34. A pattern such as /X((?2)()*+){2}+/ which has a possessive quantifier with
141        a fixed maximum following a group that contains a subroutine reference was
142        incorrectly compiled and could trigger buffer overflow. This bug was
143        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
145    35. A mutual recursion within a lookbehind assertion such as (?<=((?2))((?1)))
146        caused a stack overflow instead of the diagnosis of a non-fixed length
147        lookbehind assertion. This bug was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
149    36. The use of \K in a positive lookbehind assertion in a non-anchored pattern
150        (e.g. /(?<=\Ka)/) could make pcregrep loop.
152    37. There was a similar problem to 36 in pcretest for global matches.
154    38. If a greedy quantified \X was preceded by \C in UTF mode (e.g. \C\X*),
155        and a subsequent item in the pattern caused a non-match, backtracking over
156        the repeated \X did not stop, but carried on past the start of the subject,
157        causing reference to random memory and/or a segfault. There were also some
158        other cases where backtracking after \C could crash. This set of bugs was
159        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
161    39. The function for finding the minimum length of a matching string could take
162        a very long time if mutual recursion was present many times in a pattern,
163        for example, /((?2){73}(?2))((?1))/. A better mutual recursion detection
164        method has been implemented. This infelicity was discovered by the LLVM
165        fuzzer.
167    40. Static linking against the PCRE library using the pkg-config module was
168        failing on missing pthread symbols.
171  Version 8.36 26-September-2014  Version 8.36 26-September-2014
172  ------------------------------  ------------------------------

Removed from v.1504  
changed lines
  Added in v.1553

  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.5