cryptovec: Fix a segmentation fault #288
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Thank you! |
|
@all-contributors please add @elegaanz for code |
|
I've put up a pull request to add @elegaanz! 🎉 |
Eugeny
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2024
Adds @elegaanz as a contributor for code. This was requested by Eugeny [in this comment](#288 (comment)) [skip ci] --------- Co-authored-by: allcontributors[bot] <46447321+allcontributors[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The
CryptoVec::resizeimplementation was running into a segmentation fault in some case. If the capacity of the vector was more than 0, and that the new allocation failed, the call tostd::ptr::copy_non_overlappingwould have a null pointer as destination. This was very easy to trigger by a malicious peer, they just had to send a packet with an announced size large enough for the allocation to fail. The code now correctly panics, which would only end the current thread and not crash the whole application without giving it a chance to continue running.