[Desktop-packages] [Bug 740506]
(In reply to Andre Guerreiro from comment #76) > Created attachment 118745 [details] [review] > Incremental hashing + large file support > > With this patch I've implemented the incremental hashing plus the large file > support. > > This is still untested with files larger than 2GB but is correct for all the > regular test cases I gathered before. Some minor suggestions: * The naming of BLOCK_SIZE and block_len in hashSignedDataBlock seems misleading to me, maybe CHUNK_SIZE and block_len? * The method hashSignedDataBlock could probably be replaced by a static function taking the stream and the handler? This should give the compiler more optimization possibilities than if it is visible in other translation units. * I think the while loop within could become a for loop for better readability with the case reduced to computing the number of bytes to read instead of two separate calls to doGetChars and updateHash. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to poppler in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/740506 Title: verify digital signatures Status in Evince: Confirmed Status in Poppler: Confirmed Status in poppler package in Ubuntu: Triaged Bug description: Binary package hint: evince This is a feature request to verify digital signatures. I'm receiving more and more digitally signed PDF's and evince already acknowledges them with: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Date: Reason: Location: but it would be great if Evince would be integrated into the distro's ca-certificate infrastructure to verify these signatures. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/evince/+bug/740506/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1085526]
(In reply to Andre Guerreiro from comment #76) > Created attachment 118745 [details] [review] > Incremental hashing + large file support > > With this patch I've implemented the incremental hashing plus the large file > support. > > This is still untested with files larger than 2GB but is correct for all the > regular test cases I gathered before. Some minor suggestions: * The naming of BLOCK_SIZE and block_len in hashSignedDataBlock seems misleading to me, maybe CHUNK_SIZE and block_len? * The method hashSignedDataBlock could probably be replaced by a static function taking the stream and the handler? This should give the compiler more optimization possibilities than if it is visible in other translation units. * I think the while loop within could become a for loop for better readability with the case reduced to computing the number of bytes to read instead of two separate calls to doGetChars and updateHash. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to evince in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1085526 Title: ubuntu pdf doc viewer will not let me sign a document Status in Poppler: Confirmed Status in evince package in Ubuntu: Triaged Bug description: Just updated in last few weeks, i think ubuntu 12.4 To sign the document i have to send it to my neighbors windows computer, open it, sign it, then send it, then I get a note from echo sign that the document was sent with my signature. ProblemType: Bug DistroRelease: Ubuntu 11.10 Package: evince 3.2.1-0ubuntu2.3 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.0.0-27.44-generic 3.0.45 Uname: Linux 3.0.0-27-generic i686 ApportVersion: 1.23-0ubuntu4 Architecture: i386 Date: Fri Nov 30 18:13:25 2012 ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/evince InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal" - Release i386 (20110427.1) ProcEnviron: PATH=(custom, no user) LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash SourcePackage: evince UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to oneiric on 2012-11-18 (12 days ago) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/poppler/+bug/1085526/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1085526]
(In reply to Adrian Johnson from comment #78)
> I agree that the two calls to doGetChars and updateHash should be merged but
> I don't think a for loop is the best way to process loops where the
> increment is not exactly the same on each iteration. Maybe something like
> this:
>
> void FormFieldSignature::hashSignedByteRange(SignatureHandler *handler,
> Goffset start, Goffset len)
> {
> const int CHUNK_SIZE = 4096;
> unsigned char buffer[CHUNK_SIZE];
> Goffset i = 0;
> int byte_count = CHUNK_SIZE;
>
> doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(start);
> while (i < len)
> {
> if (i + CHUNK_SIZE > len)
> byte_count = len - i;
>
> doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(byte_count, buffer);
> handler->updateHash(buffer, byte_count);
> i += byte_count;
> }
> }
I was thinking of something like
doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(start);
for (Goffset offset = 0; offset < len; offset += CHUNK_SIZE)
{
const int byte_count = min(CHUNK_SIZE, len - offset);
doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(byte_count, buffer);
handler->updateHash(buffer, byte_count);
}
to make the loop more regular as we don't care if offset > len instead
of offset == len after the last iteration. (That code was not tested or
even compiled.)
> I don't mind if we fix all this later. It doesn't have to hold up the
> initial release.
Maybe if there is some external pressure to release this, but otherwise
I'd propose polishing it now, since there is a certain momentum not to
touch working code once it is released.
Best regards, Adam.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to evince in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1085526
Title:
ubuntu pdf doc viewer will not let me sign a document
Status in Poppler:
Confirmed
Status in evince package in Ubuntu:
Triaged
Bug description:
Just updated in last few weeks, i think ubuntu 12.4
To sign the document i have to send it to my neighbors windows
computer, open it, sign it, then send it, then I get a note from echo
sign that the document was sent with my signature.
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 11.10
Package: evince 3.2.1-0ubuntu2.3
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.0.0-27.44-generic 3.0.45
Uname: Linux 3.0.0-27-generic i686
ApportVersion: 1.23-0ubuntu4
Architecture: i386
Date: Fri Nov 30 18:13:25 2012
ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/evince
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal" - Release i386 (20110427.1)
ProcEnviron:
PATH=(custom, no user)
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: evince
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to oneiric on 2012-11-18 (12 days ago)
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/poppler/+bug/1085526/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 740506]
(In reply to Adrian Johnson from comment #78)
> I agree that the two calls to doGetChars and updateHash should be merged but
> I don't think a for loop is the best way to process loops where the
> increment is not exactly the same on each iteration. Maybe something like
> this:
>
> void FormFieldSignature::hashSignedByteRange(SignatureHandler *handler,
> Goffset start, Goffset len)
> {
> const int CHUNK_SIZE = 4096;
> unsigned char buffer[CHUNK_SIZE];
> Goffset i = 0;
> int byte_count = CHUNK_SIZE;
>
> doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(start);
> while (i < len)
> {
> if (i + CHUNK_SIZE > len)
> byte_count = len - i;
>
> doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(byte_count, buffer);
> handler->updateHash(buffer, byte_count);
> i += byte_count;
> }
> }
I was thinking of something like
doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(start);
for (Goffset offset = 0; offset < len; offset += CHUNK_SIZE)
{
const int byte_count = min(CHUNK_SIZE, len - offset);
doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(byte_count, buffer);
handler->updateHash(buffer, byte_count);
}
to make the loop more regular as we don't care if offset > len instead
of offset == len after the last iteration. (That code was not tested or
even compiled.)
> I don't mind if we fix all this later. It doesn't have to hold up the
> initial release.
Maybe if there is some external pressure to release this, but otherwise
I'd propose polishing it now, since there is a certain momentum not to
touch working code once it is released.
Best regards, Adam.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to poppler in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/740506
Title:
verify digital signatures
Status in Evince:
Confirmed
Status in Poppler:
Confirmed
Status in poppler package in Ubuntu:
Triaged
Bug description:
Binary package hint: evince
This is a feature request to verify digital signatures. I'm receiving more
and more digitally signed PDF's and evince already acknowledges them with:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Date:
Reason:
Location:
but it would be great if Evince would be integrated into the distro's
ca-certificate infrastructure to verify these signatures.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evince/+bug/740506/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1085526]
I am not sure if I am just missing where this is verified earlier, but isn't unsigned int signed_data_len = r2.getInt()+r4.getInt(); unsigned char *to_check = (unsigned char *)gmalloc(signed_data_len); //Read the 2 slices of data that are signed doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(0); doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(r2.getInt(), to_check); doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(r3.getInt()); doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(r4.getInt(), to_check+r2.getInt()); from FormFieldSignature::validateSignature susceptible to buffer overflow? Meaning for example if r4.getInt() < 0, then signed_data_len < r2.getInt(), so we overflow to_check in the first call to doGetChars while the second one becomes a no-op for a least the Stream and FileStream implementations. Best regards, Adam. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to evince in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1085526 Title: ubuntu pdf doc viewer will not let me sign a document Status in Poppler: Confirmed Status in evince package in Ubuntu: Triaged Bug description: Just updated in last few weeks, i think ubuntu 12.4 To sign the document i have to send it to my neighbors windows computer, open it, sign it, then send it, then I get a note from echo sign that the document was sent with my signature. ProblemType: Bug DistroRelease: Ubuntu 11.10 Package: evince 3.2.1-0ubuntu2.3 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.0.0-27.44-generic 3.0.45 Uname: Linux 3.0.0-27-generic i686 ApportVersion: 1.23-0ubuntu4 Architecture: i386 Date: Fri Nov 30 18:13:25 2012 ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/evince InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal" - Release i386 (20110427.1) ProcEnviron: PATH=(custom, no user) LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash SourcePackage: evince UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to oneiric on 2012-11-18 (12 days ago) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/poppler/+bug/1085526/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 740506]
I am not sure if I am just missing where this is verified earlier, but isn't unsigned int signed_data_len = r2.getInt()+r4.getInt(); unsigned char *to_check = (unsigned char *)gmalloc(signed_data_len); //Read the 2 slices of data that are signed doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(0); doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(r2.getInt(), to_check); doc->getBaseStream()->setPos(r3.getInt()); doc->getBaseStream()->doGetChars(r4.getInt(), to_check+r2.getInt()); from FormFieldSignature::validateSignature susceptible to buffer overflow? Meaning for example if r4.getInt() < 0, then signed_data_len < r2.getInt(), so we overflow to_check in the first call to doGetChars while the second one becomes a no-op for a least the Stream and FileStream implementations. Best regards, Adam. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to poppler in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/740506 Title: verify digital signatures Status in Evince: Confirmed Status in Poppler: Confirmed Status in poppler package in Ubuntu: Triaged Bug description: Binary package hint: evince This is a feature request to verify digital signatures. I'm receiving more and more digitally signed PDF's and evince already acknowledges them with: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Date: Reason: Location: but it would be great if Evince would be integrated into the distro's ca-certificate infrastructure to verify these signatures. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/evince/+bug/740506/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1254851] Re: qpdfview renders black pages after poppler update
Hello, I am the current maintainer of qpdfview. Since you updated your distribution, I suppose you also updated your version of qpdfview? Or do you use an external PPA like [1]? In any case, if you are now running something higher than version 0.4, could you try opening a DjVu or PostScript document to find out if the problem is limited to documents rendered by Poppler or also affects qpdfview's other backends and might hence be an issue within qpdfview? Best regards, Adam. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to poppler in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1254851 Title: qpdfview renders black pages after poppler update Status in “poppler” package in Ubuntu: Incomplete Bug description: qpdfview was working fine in 13.10, then I did an apt-get dist-upgrade qpdfview only renders black pages now. Suspect poppler library upgrade is the cause. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/poppler/+bug/1254851/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 923955] Re: pdftopdf filter fails to output form field values
An Ubuntu and qpdfview user seems to have had the same problem trying to print https://service.rundfunkbeitrag.de/e360/e364/e1685/e1699/resources1700/Buergerinnen_und_Buerger_Wohnungsabmeldung_0106.pdf;. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to cups in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/923955 Title: pdftopdf filter fails to output form field values Status in “cups” package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: Running the provided form through the pdftopdf filter results in an empty PDF form: all field values disappear. These types of forms have been known to print correctly before (in Karmic). Tested under 10.10 and 11.04. Both show the same behavior. To reproduce: /usr/lib/cups/filter/pdftopdf 1 user '' 1 '' interactive_enabled_filled.pdf output.pdf or lpr interactive_enabled_filled.pdf Original form available here: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Acrobat/9.0/Samples/interactiveform_enabled.pdf To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups/+bug/923955/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 923955] Re: pdftopdf filter fails to output form field values
Concerning printing with Evince: I think it converts the PDF to PostScript before sending it to CUPS for printing hence flattening the interactive features. The problem manifests only if one tries to use lp (or similar commmands) directly or if the application (like qpdfview) tries to take advantage of CUPS's internal PDF workflow. (I was under the impression that PDF is supposed to be the default format for internal processing at least since CUPS 1.6, is this correct?) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to cups in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/923955 Title: pdftopdf filter fails to output form field values Status in “cups” package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: Running the provided form through the pdftopdf filter results in an empty PDF form: all field values disappear. These types of forms have been known to print correctly before (in Karmic). Tested under 10.10 and 11.04. Both show the same behavior. To reproduce: /usr/lib/cups/filter/pdftopdf 1 user '' 1 '' interactive_enabled_filled.pdf output.pdf or lpr interactive_enabled_filled.pdf Original form available here: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Acrobat/9.0/Samples/interactiveform_enabled.pdf To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cups/+bug/923955/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Desktop-packages] [Bug 859723] Re: Nautilus appearance without colour or theme
I do see this behavior on a regular basis but I also run Opera, so I start to believe that Opera at least triggers something other programs don't. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to nautilus in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/859723 Title: Nautilus appearance without colour or theme Status in “nautilus” package in Ubuntu: Incomplete Bug description: I started Nautilus. Browsing through files and folders appears to be working. However, the appearance, i.e. buttons and layouts has virtually no colours. I uploaded a screen shot of nautilus in order to illustrate the bug. ProblemType: Bug DistroRelease: Ubuntu 11.10 Package: nautilus 1:3.1.92-0ubuntu3 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.0.0-11.18-generic 3.0.4 Uname: Linux 3.0.0-11-generic i686 ApportVersion: 1.23-0ubuntu1 Architecture: i386 Date: Mon Sep 26 17:22:15 2011 ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/nautilus ProcEnviron: PATH=(custom, no user) LANG=de_DE.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash SourcePackage: nautilus UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to oneiric on 2011-09-25 (1 days ago) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/859723/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
