Bug 884789 - Use of tDOM block allocator on x86-64 causes seg-faults
Summary: Use of tDOM block allocator on x86-64 causes seg-faults
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: tdom
Version: el6
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Orphan Owner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-12-06 17:48 UTC by Jeremy Sowden
Modified: 2020-11-30 14:58 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-11-30 14:58:58 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Demonstration Tcl script (907 bytes, application/x-tcl)
2012-12-06 17:48 UTC, Jeremy Sowden
no flags Details
Patch to add nodesDeleted as common member for all node types (1.55 KB, patch)
2013-01-03 18:19 UTC, Jeremy Sowden
no flags Details | Diff

Description Jeremy Sowden 2012-12-06 17:48:05 UTC
Created attachment 658909 [details]
Demonstration Tcl script

Description of problem:

tDOM includes its own block-allocator which is enabled by default, but only
works correctly on 32-bit architectures.  The tDOM-0.8.2/unix/CONFIG file says:

  # --enable-tdomalloc
  # Default: on
  # With this option on, a special memory allocator is used, which is
  # optimized for low memory allocation overhead. This allocator works
  # only on 32-bit plattforms. If you build for a 64-bit OS, you _must_
  # disable this.

The EPEL package does not disable it.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 0.8.2-6


How reproducible:

The attached Tcl script parses a small piece of XML into a DOM-tree, selects two
nodes and deletes them.  Because of the use of tDOM's block-allocator the nodes
overlap in memory and the deletion of the first node corrupts the second one,
leading to a seg-fault during the deletion of the second node.


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run the attached Tcl script.
2.
3.


Actual results:

Here is the output of the script:

  [jsowden.openbet:~/tmp/tdomtest] $ ./tdomtest.tcl
  <root>
      <child>
	  <attr1>one</attr1>
	  <attr2>two</attr2>
	  <attr3>three</attr3>
	  <attr4>four</attr4>
	  <attr5>five</attr5>
	  <attr6>six</attr6>
	  <attr7>seven</attr7>
	  <attr8>eight</attr8>
      </child>
  </root>

  AZL: 0: domNode0x10f8878
  AZL: 1: domNode0x1104cac - domDoc0x10da0c0
  AZL: 1: domNode0x1104ce4 - domDoc0x10da0c0
  AZL: 2: domNode0x1104ce4 -
  AZL: 3
  AZL: 0: domNode0x10f88c8
  AZL: 1: domNode0x1104ce4 -
  Segmentation fault (core dumped)

The two nodes to be deleted are domNode0x1104cac and domNode0x1104ce4.  The
names of the nodes correspond to their locations in memory.  Given that
sizeof (domNode) == 80 but 0x1104ce4 - 0x1104cac == 56, it is clear that they
must overlap.


Expected results:

After this patch had been applied to the spec-file:

--- SPECS/tdom.spec~    2012-12-06 17:30:32.559448879 +0000
+++ SPECS/tdom.spec     2012-12-06 17:30:35.031448564 +0000
@@ -35,7 +35,11 @@


 %build
+%ifarch %ix86
 %configure --enable-threads
+%else
+%configure --enable-threads --disable-tdomalloc
+%endif
 make %{?_smp_mflags}

 %install

and the package had been rebuilt and reinstalled, the following output from the
script was observed:

  [jsowden.openbet:~/tmp/tdomtest] $ ./tdomtest.tcl
  <root>
      <child>
	  <attr1>one</attr1>
	  <attr2>two</attr2>
	  <attr3>three</attr3>
	  <attr4>four</attr4>
	  <attr5>five</attr5>
	  <attr6>six</attr6>
	  <attr7>seven</attr7>
	  <attr8>eight</attr8>
      </child>
  </root>

  AZL: 0: domNode0x1a67780
  AZL: 1: domNode0x1a677e0 - domDoc0x1a820c0
  AZL: 1: domNode0x1a8eca0 - domDoc0x1a820c0
  AZL: 2: domNode0x1a8eca0 - domDoc0x1a820c0
  AZL: 3
  AZL: 0: domNode0x1a8ec40
  AZL: 1: domNode0x1a8eca0 - domDoc0x1a820c0
  AZL: 3

The two deleted nodes are no longer overlapping and the script runs to
completion.

Additional info:

The particular code in tDOM which causes this crash is tDOM-0.8.2/generic/dom.c,
ll. 2583ff.:

    TDomThreaded (
        if (shared) {
            if (doc->deletedNodes) {
                doc->deletedNodes->nextDeleted = node;
            } else {
                doc->deletedNodes = node;
            }
            node->nodeFlags |= IS_DELETED;
            node->nextDeleted = NULL;
        }
    )

node->nextDeleted is near the end of the structure and overlaps the
ownerDocument field of the following node.  Therefore, when NULL is assigned to
it, the ownerDocument field is also overwritten, leading to a subsequent null-
pointer-dereference.

Comment 1 Jeremy Sowden 2013-01-03 18:18:09 UTC
I've had another look at this problem and it turns out that the problem does not derive solely from the use of the tDOM block-allocator.  tDOM uses a generic domNode structure and different structures (e.g., domTextNode) that it uses for specific types of leaf-node.  All these types should have a common sequence of members at the start to allow tDOM to treat them all as domNode's where appropriate.  The bug in the code above, however, lies in the fact that only the domNode structure has a nextDeleted element and so when a domTextNode is type-punned and manipulated as if it were a domNode, the NULL is assigned to memory beyond the end of the object.  The reason that disabling the tDOM allocator appeared to fix the problem was that doing so reduced the chance that another object would immediately follow the deleted node in memory.

I've reported the bug upstream.  A patch to fix it is attached.

Comment 2 Jeremy Sowden 2013-01-03 18:19:33 UTC
Created attachment 672141 [details]
Patch to add nodesDeleted as common member for all node types

Comment 3 Jeremy Sowden 2013-01-03 18:20:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> I've reported the bug upstream.  A patch to fix it is attached.

https://github.com/tDOM/tdom/issues/14

Comment 4 Ben Cotton 2020-11-05 16:53:33 UTC
This message is a reminder that EPEL 6 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for EPEL 6 on 2020-11-30. It is our policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of 'el6'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later EPEL version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before EPEL 6 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Comment 5 Ben Cotton 2020-11-05 16:56:10 UTC
This message is a reminder that EPEL 6 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for EPEL 6 on 2020-11-30. It is policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of 'el6'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later EPEL version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before EPEL 6 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Comment 6 Ben Cotton 2020-11-30 14:58:58 UTC
EPEL el6 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2020-11-30. EPEL el6 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
EPEL please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.