Fail when unmarshaling would produce non-canonical big integers #149
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
xavierleroy
force-pushed
the
cautious-unmarshaling
branch
from
ced3a98
to
c37a465
Compare
|
Oups, bizarre closing. Reopening. |
|
I feel confident enough about this change to merge it right now. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As reported in #148, big integers marshaled on a 32-bit platform (or by JS-of-OCaml) and unmarshaled on a 64-bit platform can appear as custom blocks while the 64-bit platform expects a tagged OCaml integer. This can produce wrong results in many different ways.
This PR proposes to fail during unmarshaling in this case.
The failure is obtained by returning a wrong length for the big integer. In current OCaml the error message is strange (Failure "input_value: incorrect length of serialized custom block") but I have a companion PR to improve it a bit.Fixes: #148