Page MenuHomeFreeBSD
Differential D9289

devel/py-simpleeval: Update to version 0.9.2.
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by jrm on Jan 22 2017, 4:19 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Mar 20, 7:28 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 28 2025, 4:15 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 21 2025, 1:08 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 21 2025, 11:18 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Feb 19 2025, 10:13 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Jan 19 2025, 8:34 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Dec 9 2024, 8:40 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Nov 7 2024, 3:37 PM
View All 38 Files
Subscribers
mat

Details

Reviewers
swills
AMDmi3
Commits
rP432216: devel/py-simpleeval: Update to version 0.9.2.
Summary

devel/py-simpleeval: Update to version 0.9.2.

Test Plan

portlint -C: OK
testport: OK (poudriere: 10.3-RELEASE-p10, i386, default options)
testport: OK (poudriere: 10.3-RELEASE-p10, amd64, default options)
testport: OK (poudriere: 11.0-RELEASE-p1, i386, default options)
testport: OK (poudriere: 11.0-RELEASE-p1, amd64, default options)

Diff Detail

Repository
rP FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
No Lint Coverage
Unit
No Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 6942
Build 7129: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

jrm updated this revision to Diff 24304.Jan 22 2017, 4:19 AM
jrm retitled this revision from to devel/py-simpleeval: Update to version 0.9.2..
jrm updated this object.
jrm edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
jrm added reviewers: swills, AMDmi3.
Herald added a subscriber: mat. · View Herald TranscriptJan 22 2017, 4:19 AM
swills accepted this revision.Jan 23 2017, 1:06 PM
swills edited edge metadata.

Approved

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jan 23 2017, 1:06 PM
Closed by commit rP432216: devel/py-simpleeval: Update to version 0.9.2. (authored by jrm). · Explain WhyJan 23 2017, 1:23 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

Revision Contents
Changeset List

PathSize
devel/
py-simpleeval/
2 lines
6 lines

Diff 24304

View Options

devel/py-simpleeval/Makefile

Show First 20 Lines • Show All 1,096 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines case 0: /* item name */
break; break;
} }
remain = byte2; remain = byte2;
if (vpd_nextbyte(&vrs, &byte2)) { if (vpd_nextbyte(&vrs, &byte2)) {
state = -2; state = -2;
break; break;
} }
remain |= byte2 << 8; remain |= byte2 << 8;
if (remain > (0x7f*4 - vrs.off)) {
kibUnsubmitted
Not Done
Inline Actions

I suspect this was an attempt to handle the F bit from the vpd cap address register. It should be 0x7fff instead of 0x7f*4, then.

kib: I suspect this was an attempt to handle the F bit from the vpd cap address register. It should…
jhbUnsubmitted
Not Done
Inline Actions

Or to also avoid inaddressible locations. However, the "short" case would also need the same check since you could have a "short" tag at the end of the VPD area that could potentially overflow.

I would perhaps move this down to the bottom of this case before the 'switch (name)' (line 1115 in the old code in this review) so it tests both cases and code it something like:

if (vrs.off + remain - vrs.bytesinval > 0x8000) {
    pci_printf(cfg, "VPD data overflow, remain %#x\n", remain);
    state = -1;
    break;
}

The missing break in the old code isn't great either as you could potentially malloc() a really large value.

jhb: Or to also avoid inaddressible locations. However, the "short" case would also need the same…
state = -1;
pci_printf(cfg,
"invalid VPD data, remain %#x\n",
remain);
}
name = byte & 0x7f; name = byte & 0x7f;
} else { } else {
remain = byte & 0x7; remain = byte & 0x7;
name = (byte >> 3) & 0xf; name = (byte >> 3) & 0xf;
}
if (vrs.off + remain - vrs.bytesinval > 0x8000) {
pci_printf(cfg,
"VPD data overflow, remain %#x\n", remain);
state = -1;
break;
} }
switch (name) { switch (name) {
case 0x2: /* String */ case 0x2: /* String */
cfg->vpd.vpd_ident = malloc(remain + 1, cfg->vpd.vpd_ident = malloc(remain + 1,
M_DEVBUF, M_WAITOK); M_DEVBUF, M_WAITOK);
i = 0; i = 0;
state = 1; state = 1;
break; break;
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 5,502 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines
View Options

devel/py-simpleeval/distinfo

Show First 20 Lines • Show All 1,096 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines case 0: /* item name */
break; break;
} }
remain = byte2; remain = byte2;
if (vpd_nextbyte(&vrs, &byte2)) { if (vpd_nextbyte(&vrs, &byte2)) {
state = -2; state = -2;
break; break;
} }
remain |= byte2 << 8; remain |= byte2 << 8;
if (remain > (0x7f*4 - vrs.off)) {
kibUnsubmitted
Not Done
Inline Actions

I suspect this was an attempt to handle the F bit from the vpd cap address register. It should be 0x7fff instead of 0x7f*4, then.

kib: I suspect this was an attempt to handle the F bit from the vpd cap address register. It should…
jhbUnsubmitted
Not Done
Inline Actions

Or to also avoid inaddressible locations. However, the "short" case would also need the same check since you could have a "short" tag at the end of the VPD area that could potentially overflow.

I would perhaps move this down to the bottom of this case before the 'switch (name)' (line 1115 in the old code in this review) so it tests both cases and code it something like:

if (vrs.off + remain - vrs.bytesinval > 0x8000) {
    pci_printf(cfg, "VPD data overflow, remain %#x\n", remain);
    state = -1;
    break;
}

The missing break in the old code isn't great either as you could potentially malloc() a really large value.

jhb: Or to also avoid inaddressible locations. However, the "short" case would also need the same…
state = -1;
pci_printf(cfg,
"invalid VPD data, remain %#x\n",
remain);
}
name = byte & 0x7f; name = byte & 0x7f;
} else { } else {
remain = byte & 0x7; remain = byte & 0x7;
name = (byte >> 3) & 0xf; name = (byte >> 3) & 0xf;
}
if (vrs.off + remain - vrs.bytesinval > 0x8000) {
pci_printf(cfg,
"VPD data overflow, remain %#x\n", remain);
state = -1;
break;
} }
switch (name) { switch (name) {
case 0x2: /* String */ case 0x2: /* String */
cfg->vpd.vpd_ident = malloc(remain + 1, cfg->vpd.vpd_ident = malloc(remain + 1,
M_DEVBUF, M_WAITOK); M_DEVBUF, M_WAITOK);
i = 0; i = 0;
state = 1; state = 1;
break; break;
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 5,502 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines