Re: [sqlite] Potential corruption bug in 2.8.17. Patch attached.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> --- vdbe.c~2005-12-19 12:42:25.0 -0500 > >> +++ vdbe.c 2006-10-22 16:32:45.0 -0400 > >> @@ -2937,7 +2937,7 @@ > >>if( pOp->p2 & OPFLAG_NCHANGE ) db->nChange++; > >>if( pOp->p2 & OPFLAG_LASTROWID ) db->lastRowid = pNos->i; >

Re: [sqlite] Potential corruption bug in 2.8.17. Patch attached.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> This was likely a typo. In its current state, it's accessing uninitialized >> memory. It looks like it's conceivable that an incorrect nextRowid could be >> later used if the uninitialized value happens to be a small integer (smaller >> tha

Re: [sqlite] Potential corruption bug in 2.8.17. Patch attached.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This was likely a typo. In its current state, it's accessing uninitialized > memory. It looks like it's conceivable that an incorrect nextRowid could be > later used if the uninitialized value happens to be a small integer (smaller > than pC->nextRowid) and the "valid"

[sqlite] Potential corruption bug in 2.8.17. Patch attached.

This was likely a typo. In its current state, it's accessing uninitialized memory. It looks like it's conceivable that an incorrect nextRowid could be later used if the uninitialized value happens to be a small integer (smaller than pC->nextRowid) and the "valid" flag therefore doesn't get set to