Validate UTF-16 surrogate pairs before combining#187
Open
jarvis24young wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
SQLWCHAR-to-UTF-8 conversion currently treats any UTF-16 high surrogate as the start of a surrogate pair. It then advances to the next code unit and reads it unconditionally.
That can read past the caller-supplied length when a wide-character ODBC API receives a dangling high surrogate at the end of its input. The new regression test exercises this through the public
SQLPrepareW()path with a guarded one-code-unit SQLWCHAR buffer, so the old implementation faults deterministically if it readswstr[1].Fix this by only taking the surrogate-pair path when:
ilen, andOtherwise the existing non-pair path is used, avoiding the out-of-bounds read.
Reproduction on the old implementation, using the same black-box test with ASan and a guarded buffer:
Tested after the fix:
Also tested the target binary directly under ASan/UBSan with
detect_leaks=0; it returns normally.