interpret, miri: fix dealing with overflow during slice indexing and allocation #130342
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @fee1-dead rustbot has assigned @fee1-dead. Use |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter cc @rust-lang/miri |
|
The Miri subtree was changed cc @rust-lang/miri |
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
slice-idx-overflow
branch
2 times, most recently
from
86d5c6c to
6aa14a8
Compare
RalfJung
changed the title
saethlin
reviewed
Sep 14, 2024
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
slice-idx-overflow
branch
from
6aa14a8 to
268f6cf
Compare
|
r? saethlin |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#129439 (Implement feature `string_from_utf8_lossy_owned` for lossy conversion from `Vec<u8>` to `String` methods) - rust-lang#129828 (miri: treat non-memory local variables properly for data race detection) - rust-lang#130110 (make dist vendoring configurable) - rust-lang#130293 (Fix lint levels not getting overridden by attrs on `Stmt` nodes) - rust-lang#130342 (interpret, miri: fix dealing with overflow during slice indexing and allocation) Failed merges: - rust-lang#130394 (const: don't ICE when encountering a mutable ref to immutable memory) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#130342 - RalfJung:slice-idx-overflow, r=saethlin interpret, miri: fix dealing with overflow during slice indexing and allocation This is mostly to fix rust-lang#130284. I then realized we're using somewhat sketchy arguments for a similar multiplication in `copy`/`copy_nonoverlapping`/`write_bytes`, so I made them all share the same function that checks exactly the right thing. (The intrinsics would previously fail on allocations larger than `1 << 47` bytes... which are theoretically possible maybe? Anyway it seems conceptually wrong to use any other bound than `isize::MAX` here.)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is mostly to fix #130284.
I then realized we're using somewhat sketchy arguments for a similar multiplication in
copy/copy_nonoverlapping/write_bytes, so I made them all share the same function that checks exactly the right thing. (The intrinsics would previously fail on allocations larger than1 << 47bytes... which are theoretically possible maybe? Anyway it seems conceptually wrong to use any other bound thanisize::MAXhere.)