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

Diff of /code/trunk/ChangeLog

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

revision 1535 by ph10, Wed Mar 25 16:51:51 2015 UTC revision 1600 by ph10, Wed Sep 2 08:54:57 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.  If a group that contained a recursive back reference also contained a
11        forward reference subroutine call followed by a non-forward-reference
12        subroutine call, for example /.((?2)(?R)\1)()/, pcre2_compile() failed to
13        compile correct code, leading to undefined behaviour or an internally
14        detected error. This bug was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
15    
16    2.  Quantification of certain items (e.g. atomic back references) could cause
17        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.  A repeated conditional group whose condition was a reference by name caused
22        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.  A recursive back reference by name within a group that had the same name as
26        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    20. A possessively repeated conditional group that could match an empty string,
82        for example, /(?(R))*+/, was incorrectly compiled.
83    
84    21. Fix infinite recursion in the JIT compiler when certain patterns such as
85        /(?:|a|){100}x/ are analysed.
86    
87    22. Some patterns with character classes involving [: and \\ were incorrectly
88        compiled and could cause reading from uninitialized memory or an incorrect
89        error diagnosis.
90    
91    23. Pathological patterns containing many nested occurrences of [: caused
92        pcre_compile() to run for a very long time.
93    
94    24. A conditional group with only one branch has an implicit empty alternative
95        branch and must therefore be treated as potentially matching an empty
96        string.
97    
98    25. If (?R was followed by - or + incorrect behaviour happened instead of a
99        diagnostic.
100    
101    26. Arrange to give up on finding the minimum matching length for overly
102        complex patterns.
103    
104    27. Similar to (4) above: in a pattern with duplicated named groups and an
105        occurrence of (?| it is possible for an apparently non-recursive back
106        reference to become recursive if a later named group with the relevant
107        number is encountered. This could lead to a buffer overflow. Wen Guanxing
108        from Venustech ADLAB discovered this bug.
109    
110    28. If pcregrep was given the -q option with -c or -l, or when handling a
111        binary file, it incorrectly wrote output to stdout.
112    
113    29. The JIT compiler did not restore the control verb head in case of *THEN
114        control verbs. This issue was found by Karl Skomski with a custom LLVM
115        fuzzer.
116    
117    30. Error messages for syntax errors following \g and \k were giving inaccurate
118        offsets in the pattern.
119    
120    31. Added a check for integer overflow in conditions (?(<digits>) and
121        (?(R<digits>). This omission was discovered by Karl Skomski with the LLVM
122        fuzzer.
123    
124    32. Handling recursive references such as (?2) when the reference is to a group
125        later in the pattern uses code that is very hacked about and error-prone.
126        It has been re-written for PCRE2. Here in PCRE1, a check has been added to
127        give an internal error if it is obvious that compiling has gone wrong.
128    
129    33. The JIT compiler should not check repeats after a {0,1} repeat byte code.
130        This issue was found by Karl Skomski with a custom LLVM fuzzer.
131    
132    34. The JIT compiler should restore the control chain for empty possessive
133        repeats. This issue was found by Karl Skomski with a custom LLVM fuzzer.
134    
135    35. Match limit check added to JIT recursion. This issue was found by Karl
136        Skomski with a custom LLVM fuzzer.
137    
138    36. Yet another case similar to 27 above has been circumvented by an
139        unconditional allocation of extra memory. This issue is fixed "properly" in
140        PCRE2 by refactoring the way references are handled. Wen Guanxing
141        from Venustech ADLAB discovered this bug.
142    
143    37. Fix two assertion fails in JIT. These issues were found by Karl Skomski
144        with a custom LLVM fuzzer.
145    
146    38. Fixed a corner case of range optimization in JIT.
147    
148    39. An incorrect error "overran compiling workspace" was given if there were
149        exactly enough group forward references such that the last one extended
150        into the workspace safety margin. The next one would have expanded the
151        workspace. The test for overflow was not including the safety margin.
152    
153    40. A match limit issue is fixed in JIT which was found by Karl Skomski
154        with a custom LLVM fuzzer.
155    
156    41. Remove the use of /dev/null in testdata/testinput2, because it doesn't
157        work under Windows. (Why has it taken so long for anyone to notice?)
158    
159    
160    Version 8.37 28-April-2015
161    --------------------------
162    
163  1.  When an (*ACCEPT) is triggered inside capturing parentheses, it arranges  1.  When an (*ACCEPT) is triggered inside capturing parentheses, it arranges
164      for those parentheses to be closed with whatever has been captured so far.      for those parentheses to be closed with whatever has been captured so far.
165      However, it was failing to mark any other groups between the hightest      However, it was failing to mark any other groups between the hightest
# Line 41  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015 Line 197  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015
197     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
198     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
199     FALSE when the capture could not be consulted, leading to a incorrect     FALSE when the capture could not be consulted, leading to a incorrect
200     behaviour by pcre2_match(). This bug has been fixed.     behaviour by pcre_exec(). This bug has been fixed.
201    
202  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
203     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 65  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015 Line 221  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015
221      failed to allow the zero-repeat case if pcre2_exec() was called with an      failed to allow the zero-repeat case if pcre2_exec() was called with an
222      ovector too small to capture the group.      ovector too small to capture the group.
223    
224  13. Fixed two bugs in pcretest that were discovered by fuzzing and reported by  13. Fixed two bugs in pcretest that were discovered by fuzzing and reported by
225      Red Hat Product Security:      Red Hat Product Security:
226    
227      (a) A crash if /K and /F were both set with the option to save the compiled      (a) A crash if /K and /F were both set with the option to save the compiled
# Line 74  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015 Line 230  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015
230      (b) Another crash if the option to print captured substrings in a callout      (b) Another crash if the option to print captured substrings in a callout
231      was combined with setting a null ovector, for example \O\C+ as a subject      was combined with setting a null ovector, for example \O\C+ as a subject
232      string.      string.
233    
234  14. A pattern such as "((?2){0,1999}())?", which has a group containing a  14. A pattern such as "((?2){0,1999}())?", which has a group containing a
235      forward reference repeated a large (but limited) number of times within a      forward reference repeated a large (but limited) number of times within a
236      repeated outer group that has a zero minimum quantifier, caused incorrect      repeated outer group that has a zero minimum quantifier, caused incorrect
237      code to be compiled, leading to the error "internal error:      code to be compiled, leading to the error "internal error:
238      previously-checked referenced subpattern not found" when an incorrect      previously-checked referenced subpattern not found" when an incorrect
239      memory address was read. This bug was reported as "heap overflow",      memory address was read. This bug was reported as "heap overflow",
240      discovered by Kai Lu of Fortinet's FortiGuard Labs and given the CVE number      discovered by Kai Lu of Fortinet's FortiGuard Labs and given the CVE number
241      CVE-2015-2325.      CVE-2015-2325.
242    
243  23. A pattern such as "((?+1)(\1))/" containing a forward reference subroutine  23. A pattern such as "((?+1)(\1))/" containing a forward reference subroutine
244      call within a group that also contained a recursive back reference caused      call within a group that also contained a recursive back reference caused
245      incorrect code to be compiled. This bug was reported as "heap overflow",      incorrect code to be compiled. This bug was reported as "heap overflow",
246      discovered by Kai Lu of Fortinet's FortiGuard Labs, and given the CVE      discovered by Kai Lu of Fortinet's FortiGuard Labs, and given the CVE
247      number CVE-2015-2326.      number CVE-2015-2326.
248    
249  24. Computing the size of the JIT read-only data in advance has been a source  24. Computing the size of the JIT read-only data in advance has been a source
# Line 102  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015 Line 258  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015
258    
259  26. Fix JIT compilation of conditional blocks, which assertion  26. Fix JIT compilation of conditional blocks, which assertion
260      is converted to (*FAIL). E.g: /(?(?!))/.      is converted to (*FAIL). E.g: /(?(?!))/.
261    
262  27. The pattern /(?(?!)^)/ caused references to random memory. This bug was  27. The pattern /(?(?!)^)/ caused references to random memory. This bug was
263      discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.      discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
264    
# Line 110  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015 Line 266  Version 8.37 xx-xxx-2015
266      when this assertion was used as a condition, for example (?(?!)a|b). In      when this assertion was used as a condition, for example (?(?!)a|b). In
267      pcre2_match() it worked by luck; in pcre2_dfa_match() it gave an incorrect      pcre2_match() it worked by luck; in pcre2_dfa_match() it gave an incorrect
268      error about an unsupported item.      error about an unsupported item.
269    
270  29. For some types of pattern, for example /Z*(|d*){216}/, the auto-  29. For some types of pattern, for example /Z*(|d*){216}/, the auto-
271      possessification code could take exponential time to complete. A recursion      possessification code could take exponential time to complete. A recursion
272      depth limit of 1000 has been imposed to limit the resources used by this      depth limit of 1000 has been imposed to limit the resources used by this
273      optimization.      optimization.
274    
275    30. A pattern such as /(*UTF)[\S\V\H]/, which contains a negated special class
276        such as \S in non-UCP mode, explicit wide characters (> 255) can be ignored
277        because \S ensures they are all in the class. The code for doing this was
278        interacting badly with the code for computing the amount of space needed to
279        compile the pattern, leading to a buffer overflow. This bug was discovered
280        by the LLVM fuzzer.
281    
282    31. A pattern such as /((?2)+)((?1))/ which has mutual recursion nested inside
283        other kinds of group caused stack overflow at compile time. This bug was
284        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
285    
286    32. A pattern such as /(?1)(?#?'){8}(a)/ which had a parenthesized comment
287        between a subroutine call and its quantifier was incorrectly compiled,
288        leading to buffer overflow or other errors. This bug was discovered by the
289        LLVM fuzzer.
290    
291    33. The illegal pattern /(?(?<E>.*!.*)?)/ was not being diagnosed as missing an
292        assertion after (?(. The code was failing to check the character after
293        (?(?< for the ! or = that would indicate a lookbehind assertion. This bug
294        was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
295    
296    34. A pattern such as /X((?2)()*+){2}+/ which has a possessive quantifier with
297        a fixed maximum following a group that contains a subroutine reference was
298        incorrectly compiled and could trigger buffer overflow. This bug was
299        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
300    
301    35. A mutual recursion within a lookbehind assertion such as (?<=((?2))((?1)))
302        caused a stack overflow instead of the diagnosis of a non-fixed length
303        lookbehind assertion. This bug was discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
304    
305    36. The use of \K in a positive lookbehind assertion in a non-anchored pattern
306        (e.g. /(?<=\Ka)/) could make pcregrep loop.
307    
308    37. There was a similar problem to 36 in pcretest for global matches.
309    
310    38. If a greedy quantified \X was preceded by \C in UTF mode (e.g. \C\X*),
311        and a subsequent item in the pattern caused a non-match, backtracking over
312        the repeated \X did not stop, but carried on past the start of the subject,
313        causing reference to random memory and/or a segfault. There were also some
314        other cases where backtracking after \C could crash. This set of bugs was
315        discovered by the LLVM fuzzer.
316    
317    39. The function for finding the minimum length of a matching string could take
318        a very long time if mutual recursion was present many times in a pattern,
319        for example, /((?2){73}(?2))((?1))/. A better mutual recursion detection
320        method has been implemented. This infelicity was discovered by the LLVM
321        fuzzer.
322    
323    40. Static linking against the PCRE library using the pkg-config module was
324        failing on missing pthread symbols.
325    
326    
327  Version 8.36 26-September-2014  Version 8.36 26-September-2014
328  ------------------------------  ------------------------------

Legend:
Removed from v.1535  
changed lines
  Added in v.1600

  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.5