CLEAR_ERRSV: create a new SV if the existing one isGV_with_GP #23794
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
Contributor
Author
|
Not sure where the test should go! |
Contributor
dfd167e added the readonly The fix looks reasonable to me. |
GH Perl#16885 is a fuzzer-identified assert in Perl_sv_grow. Besides the question of how the program should behave, the actual assertion comes via the `SvPVCLEAR()` statement in `CLEAR_ERRSV`, where `svp` is unexpectedly a PVGV with GV. This commit treats this the same as if `svp` was READONLY - the refcount is decremented and `svp` assigned a brand new SVt_PV.
richardleach
force-pushed
the
CLEAR_ERRSV_16885
branch
from
ecc1077 to
66d795d
Compare
tonycoz
approved these changes
Oct 3, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
GH #16885 is a fuzzer-identified assert in Perl_sv_grow. Besides the question of how the program should behave, the actual assertion comes via the
SvPVCLEAR()statement inCLEAR_ERRSV, wheresvpis unexpectedly a PVGV with GV. This commit treats this the same as ifsvpwas READONLY - the refcount is decremented andsvpassigned a brand new SVt_PV.(I don't know whether #16885 should remain open until any other appropriate behaviour is decided.)