Skip to content

Conversation

@ndossche
Copy link
Member

The first warning may trigger an error handler, destroying the operand and its string. So we need to protect the string in that case. Care was taken to avoid unnecessary refcounts and to avoid touching the hot code path.

@ndossche ndossche marked this pull request as ready for review June 27, 2025 06:46
@ndossche ndossche requested a review from iluuu1994 June 27, 2025 21:22
The first warning may trigger an error handler, destroying the operand
and its string. So we need to protect the string in that case.
Care was taken to avoid unnecessary refcounts and to avoid touching the
hot code path.
@ndossche ndossche force-pushed the fix-oss-fuzz-427814456 branch from 75d8067 to 313b82e Compare June 28, 2025 12:44
Copy link
Member

@iluuu1994 iluuu1994 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks reasonable 👍

@iluuu1994
Copy link
Member

iluuu1994 commented Jul 1, 2025

Ps. Do we backport these? I usually target master.

@ndossche
Copy link
Member Author

ndossche commented Jul 1, 2025

Ps. Do we backport these? I usually target master.

Uh dunno. This is not particularly important, but it doesn't harm merging this in a lower branch as the fix is very local. I suppose one potential advantange is reducing the risk of merge conflicts.

@ndossche ndossche closed this in 9174984 Jul 1, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants