Restrict co_code to be under INT_MAX in codeobject #20628
Merged
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
vstinner
reviewed
Jun 4, 2020
86b915b to
265f962
Compare
pablogsal
approved these changes
Jun 10, 2020
|
Thanks for the fix :-) |
arun-mani-j
pushed a commit
to arun-mani-j/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2020
|
It needs to be backported to 3.9. See bpo-43499. |
|
Thanks @ammaraskar for the PR, and @pablogsal for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9. |
|
Sorry, @ammaraskar and @pablogsal, I could not cleanly backport this to |
ammaraskar
added a commit
to ammaraskar/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 16, 2021
(cherry picked from commit 3b3b83c)
|
GH-24896 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch. |
serhiy-storchaka
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2021
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Based on @vstinner's advice from #20590 (comment)
This assumption already exists in the interpreter: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Python/ceval.c#L1328
I checked
PyBytes_GET_SIZE(x)directly instead ofPyBytes_GET_SIZE(x)/sizeof(_Py_CODEUNIT)just like ceval, since presumably the smallest size of 1 for_Py_CODEUNITwould still allowco_codeto be fully indexable with an int.