Front page | perl.par |
Postings from September 2008
Mon Sep 15 14:21:03 2008: Request 39233 was acted upon.
Transaction: Correspondence added by wyp3rlx02@sneakemail.com
Queue: PAR
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #39233] Suspected buffer overflow while running executable made by Par::Packer
Broken in: (no value)
Severity: (no value)
Owner: Nobody
Requestors: dave_clarke@merck.com
Status: open
Ticket <URL: http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39233 >
Hi Dave,
Clarke, Dave S via RT wrote:
> Queue: PAR
> Ticket <URL: http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39233 >
[...]
> I did take a second look at the regexp. If you knew what I was trying
> to parse, you may not think it was quite so diabolocal.
Well, I wasn't considering your goal diabolical nor the means, but the
specific regular expression which, according to the expert, uses a (C)
stack frame per character which is a major issue.
From what I know, it's quite possible that the condition is being
triggered *both* with- and without PAR::Packer. In the PAR::Packer case,
more code has been run, the whole script is essentially running inside
an 'eval""'. Maybe the problem just manifests earlier in that case? I'm
just speculating, though. Are you seeing the problem when you're running
the generated executable on the exact same system or is it a different
computer or OS installation?
> The example you sent looked like it was using an experimental feature
> [?>] -- or maybe I'm looking at old documentation.
You're right. In 5.8.8, this is marked as "highly experimental". I don't
have a 5.10.0 handy, but I suspect it's not experimental any more. In
5.11.0, that construct is absolutely not flagged as experimental any more!
Given that the advice came from the person who wrote almost all of the
improvements in the regexp engine for 5.10.0, he'd naturally use
advanced feaetures.
> Anyways, I have a good solution to the problem for now. However, there
> was a difference between the way the interpreted perl code ran, and the
> .exe created by Par::Packer. If I can create a simple script, and .exe
> that I can forward to you, I will.
Reporting the issue was entirely valid, no doubts. If you can produced a
simple script, that would be much appreciated. I'll mark the issue as
resolved, but a simple reply will reopen the ticket.
Best regards,
Steffen
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next