On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
<barbi...@profusion.mobi> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Brian Wang <brian.wang.0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> OK. With the help of gdbserver/gdb, I am able to find where it's looping.
>>> However, I don't know what causes it. Here it goes:
>>> [svn r43601]
>>> evas/src/lib/canvas/evas_object_textblock.c:3152
>>
>> The line number is off... I've put some of my stuff in the front of
>> the source code... My bad.
>>
>>> evas_object_textblock_text_markup_get() calls
>>> escape = _escaped_char_match(p, &adv);
>>> _escaped_char_match() returns "" and 'adv' is set to 0
>>> thus the looping.
>>>
>>> Here is the gdb backtrace:
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> (gdb) bt
>>> #0 _escaped_char_match (s=0x780a1 "追 ", adv=0xbec8c490)
>>> at evas_object_textblock.c:2732
>>> #1 0x4008338c in evas_object_textblock_text_markup_get (obj=0x75380)
>>> at evas_object_textblock.c:3152
>>> #2 0x40826be0 in _edje_part_recalc_single (ed=0x0, ep=0x0, desc=0x75ae0,
>>> chosen_desc=0x40300000, rel1_to_x=0x0, rel1_to_y=0x40884c2c,
>>> rel2_to_x=0x3, rel2_to_y=0x751c0, confine_to=0x0, params=0x749ac,
>>> flags=3)
>>> at edje_calc.c:651
>>> #3 0x408271c8 in _edje_part_recalc (ed=0x10, ep=0x748bc, flags=1)
>>> at edje_calc.c:1721
>>> #4 0x40828e10 in _edje_recalc_do (ed=0x780a1) at edje_calc.c:224
>>> #5 0x408473b4 in edje_object_size_min_restricted_calc (
>>> obj=<value optimized out>, minw=0x0, minh=0x4025e27c, restrictedw=0,
>>> restrictedh=-1) at edje_util.c:2362
>>> #6 0x40847618 in edje_object_size_min_calc (obj=0x780a1, minw=0xbec8c490,
>>> minh=0x40144860) at edje_util.c:2311
>>> #7 0x40210a6c in _sizing_eval (obj=0x5d060) at elm_label.c:55
>>> #8 0x40210e10 in elm_label_label_set (obj=0x5d060, label=0x8c88 " 追 ")
>>> at elm_label.c:121
>>> #9 0x00008b1c in elm_main (argc=1, argv=0xbec8cd04) at
>>> elm-label-bug-test.c:36
>>> #10 0x00008bac in main (argc=1, argv=0xbec8cd04) at elm-label-bug-test.c:64
>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I don't know what's special about the string that makes it end up the
>>> condition.
>>> Checking if (strlen(escape)==0 && adv==0) seems to terminate the loop.
>>> But I totally have no clue what's going on here... Fixing it without
>>> knowing what's causing the condition is wrong.
>>>
>>> The string "追 " in UTF-8 is of value: 0xe8 0xbf 0xbd 0x20
>>>
>>> Is the info above enough to track down the problem?
>>
>> I've tracked it down a bit.
>> On x86, via gdb,
>> ------------------------
>> (gdb) p escape_strings[sizeof(escape_strings)]
>> $4 = 102 'f'
>> ------------------------
>>
>> On my arm, via gdb,
>> ------------------------
>> (gdb) p escape_strings[sizeof(escape_strings)]
>> $12 = 0 '\0'
>> ------------------------
>
> As you said below, it is invalid read.
>
>
>> At the very last check of
>> while ((*mc) && (*sc)),
>> map_itr is equal to map_end and the difference is the on x86 *mc is
>> non-zero and on my arm, *mc is zero.
>> Therefore, on arm, the while loop is skipped all together and 'match'
>> is still 1. And hence the looping...
>>
>> sizeof(escape_strings) on both platforms are the same: 1551.
>> I would say that it is invalid read for both cases. The x86 case gets
>> lucky and got away with it.
>> I'm surprised that valgrind did not catch this. Or maybe I'm wrong...
>> char a[] = "s";
>> sizeof(a) == 2
>> accessing a[2] is out of bounds
>
> this is correct. As why it does not warn, maybe there is another valid
> string allocated right after, thus you end reading something valid and
> valgrind will not warn you.
I guess so too. I thought valgrind is pretty good at catching
out-of-bounds accesses..
>
>
>> We may check if (map_itr < map_end) after the first
>> _advance_after_end_of_string() inside _escaped_char_match()
>> or we may decrease map_end by 1 since every escape character is
>> already terminated by a null character.
>> Thus, my proposed patch (sorry for the bad part at the front, which is
>> only for my own usage):
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Index: src/lib/canvas/evas_object_textblock.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- src/lib/canvas/evas_object_textblock.c (revision 43601)
>> +++ src/lib/canvas/evas_object_textblock.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1608,6 +1608,18 @@
>> _layout_word_start(char *str, int start)
>> {
>> int p, tp, chr = 0;
>> +
>> +#if 1
>> + //
>> + // coolbrian: break if the word is not within the ASCII range
>> + // @note This is good for breaking up Chinese words, which are
>> made of Chinese characters.
>> + // Chinese characters do not look strange if they are not
>> grouped to form a 'phrase'.
>> + // Also, Chinese 'phrases' are of too many patterns and
>> probably need a dictionary to look up.
>> + // That would be too much.
>> + //
>> + if (((unsigned char)str[start]) >= 0x80)
>> + return start;
>> +#endif
>>
>> p = start;
>> chr = evas_common_font_utf8_get_next((unsigned char *)(str), &p);
>> @@ -2709,7 +2721,7 @@
>> const char *map_itr, *map_end, *mc, *sc;
>>
>> map_itr = escape_strings;
>> - map_end = map_itr + sizeof(escape_strings);
>> + map_end = map_itr + sizeof(escape_strings) - 1;
>>
>> while (map_itr < map_end)
>
> It's weird:
>
> map_end = map_itr + sizeof(escape_strings)
>
> is fine, as we compare for less than, so this address would never be
> used. The last run should be on escape_strings:
> "⊥\0" "\xe2\x8a\xa5\0"
>
> Thus:
>
> while (map_itr < map_end)
>
> --> yes, we're at map_itr = ⊥\0
>
>
> {
> const char *escape;
> int match;
>
> escape = map_itr;
>
> --> escape = ⊥\0
>
>
> _advance_after_end_of_string(&map_itr);
> mc = map_itr;
>
> --> map_itr = \xe2\x8a\xa5\0
>
>
> sc = s;
> match = 1;
> while ((*mc) && (*sc))
> {
>
> --> enters
>
>
> if ((unsigned char)*sc < (unsigned char)*mc) return NULL;
>
> --> I have no clue why this
I don't either...
>
>
> if (*sc != *mc) match = 0;
>
> --> fails, thus match = 0
>
>
> mc++;
> sc++;
> }
> if (match)
>
> --> skipped, as match = 0
>
> {
> *adv = mc - map_itr;
> return escape;
> }
> _advance_after_end_of_string(&map_itr);
>
> --> map_itr was \xe2\x8a\xa5\0, thus it's now one byte after, thus
> map_itr == escape_strings + sizeof(escape_strings) and thus the next
> while (map_itr < map_end) will fail.
No. map_itr == escape_strings + sizeof(escape_strings) -1
Thus the next while (map_itr < map_end) will pass.
If we simplify the string a bit:
char escape_strings[] = "\xe2\x8a\0"; // sizeof it == 4
say escape_strings is at address 0x0
map_itr = 0;
map_end = 0 + 4 = 4;
_advance_after_end_of_string(&map_itr);
map_itr=3;
>
> clearly something else is happening :-/
>
> --
> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> http://profusion.mobi embedded systems
> --------------------------------------
> MSN: barbi...@gmail.com
> Skype: gsbarbieri
> Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202
>
--
brian
------------------
Cool-Karaoke - The smallest recording studio, in your palm, open-sourced
http://cool-idea.com.tw/
iMaGiNaTiOn iS mOrE iMpOrTaNt tHaN kNoWlEdGe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
