-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.9k
Fix #77565: Incorrect locator detection in ZIP-based phars #6507
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | ||
--TEST-- | ||
Bug #77565 (Incorrect locator detection in ZIP-based phars) | ||
--SKIPIF-- | ||
<?php | ||
if (!extension_loaded('phar')) die('skip phar extension not available'); | ||
?> | ||
--FILE-- | ||
<?php | ||
$phar = new PharData(__DIR__ . '/bug77565.zip'); | ||
var_dump($phar['1.zip']->getFilename()); | ||
?> | ||
--EXPECT-- | ||
string(5) "1.zip" |
Binary file not shown.
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is end not just
s + n
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because that marker string might (theoretically) be part of the directory record. This code makes sure that we really get the start of the end of central directory record.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this really guarantees it either ... say it's at the start of a 255 byte trailing comment. The
-sizeof(phar_zip_dir_end)
won't skip over that. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean here?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ugh, you're right! It seems to me that the only way to reliably detect the end of central directory header would be to read through all headers and data from the beginning of the file. Anyhow, I'm going to commit a mitigitation for the current approach; maybe this is reasonably sufficient? With that change, two tests fail due to different errors; these would need to be fixed, if we're going that route.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This approach looks okay to me. Personally I'd start at
end = s + n
and then checkeocd_start + sizeof(phar_zip_dir_end) <= p + n
before accessing comment_len ... your current code is safe, but it took me a moment to understand that this is guaranteed due to the used start position.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I see that might be confusing; I added a respective assertion, and also adapted the tests.