tree 9402c8040229da49fbf2e6590bca910acfda75e0
parent 3770574e4a70e810add9929973c51f9070c8c851
author Christian Brabandt <cb@256bit.org> 1700766868 +0100
committer Christian Brabandt <cb@256bit.org> 1700766868 +0100
gpgsig -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 iQIzBAABCgAdFiEETxlwiBaRjhmq4Z3u8/kto4P93gkFAmVfpVgACgkQ8/kto4P9
 3glVPw//d6SLkGaYV7KR0m+dZz5zeOZB6pcQVnVNuDnC2n/1qO4fE9Yn3pTdDC+s
 ALJdlsD87nZySubdoKNuF9jWDpHpOcQnz0Wlf2AH6mG/toYpGxRhoF+/qNdARLvU
 MlE5Drg+SiQyHxQdhgYq/PEwNRtA3YYdH3wlczHeQti5uwSDtCk0hoepWaW1rH2b
 f0bdTveTKHFWXUcbcOSnyUDPaRL8OjTh6V7A7nyQ3F4Ogp9XTwy7E0qBobXElAZ/
 RRmbsATBOZv+8nebTw5a4W7IRM04zhV1qmwS1y2S21pR30tjlg9baLLUVQAeFY8F
 RpyCCA/E9oVnsKDO87xuOgHdmRtFyUrxbrqtoLEVfVkEinLK0LaWW0fO0dLjb+3V
 JplzsKBYO0uiIauHF7O0JCF+qoXExXJQ//aJRfVr8xBR+axUjNJ+2aU7ZX6oQ2MI
 hli4Y97Mg/yBmFje6v8EmURXZcEzGzb2ikuQR5ZYvlRXQBGMwWuz2SsvNW/i1VnB
 bCIxingrOhKmbPgNcxE9KeVYp0BPBpn8eUeSmlwdog/RZNQsCBOSQ7AZsSh4v4EJ
 G72F/iNnlwgUEtYKIaow/vZE2aVZKCyxU8TgkmN5eGlkMBGWfvvgV/aYXN7WcyGq
 gBDAFzplXKRYEFyQX82MqKgnlFzJtapX8wUOemoqbA3l4D1L+bY=
 =YZxq
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

patch 9.0.2123: Problem with initializing the length of range() lists

Problem:  Problem with initializing the length of range() lists
Solution: Set length explicitly when it shouldn't contain any items

range() may cause a wrong calculation of list length, which may later
then cause a segfault in list_find().  This is usually not a problem,
because range_list_materialize() calculates the length, when it
materializes the list.

In addition, in list_find() when the length of the range was wrongly
initialized, it may seem to be valid, so the check for list index
out-of-bounds will not be true, because it is called before the list is
actually materialized. And so we may eventually try to access a null
pointer, causing a segfault.

So this patch does 3 things:

- In f_range(), when we know that the list should be empty, explicitly
  set the list->lv_len value to zero. This should happen, when
  start is larger than end (in case the stride is positive) or
  end is larger than start when the stride is negative.
  This should fix the underlying issue properly. However,

- as a safety measure, let's check that the requested index is not
  out of range one more time, after the list has been materialized
  and return NULL in case it suddenly is.

- add a few more tests to verify the behaviour.

fixes: #13557
closes: #13563

Co-authored-by: Tim Pope <tpope@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brabandt <cb@256bit.org>