GNU bug report logs - #23917
25.0.95; commit 3a9d6296b35e5317c497674d5725eb52699bd3b8 causing org-capture to error out

Previous Next

Full log

Message #41 received at 23917 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 23917 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim <at> gmail.com, alex.bennee <at> linaro.org,
 nljlistbox2 <at> gmail.com, jwiegley <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: Please consider making Bug #23917 a blocker for 25.1 (was Re:
 org-capture: Capture template ‘g’: Match data clobbered
 by buffer modification hooks)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 05:40:11 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>,  23917 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  alex.bennee <at> linaro.org,  jwiegley <at> gmail.com,  nljlistbox2 <at> gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 20:58:35 -0400
> 
> > In the case in point, a single character at EOB (= 62) was deleted,
> > which made EOB be 61, one less than its previous value.  When
> > save-match-data was called from within a hook set up by Org, it tried
> > to record the end of the sub-expression as 62, but set-marker silently
> > changed that to 61.  That "corrected" value was subsequently restored
> > when save-match-data was exited, whereas replace-match expected to see
> > the original value of 62, and therefore barfed.
> 
> I think this change performed by save-match-data is harmless: the old
> value (62) was not valid any more anyway.

In this particular case, yes.  But only in this case, because (a)
there's actually only one sub-expression, and (b) it ends exactly at
EOB.

The more general problem is when there's at least one more
sub-expression, whose start and/or end are after the new EOB.  Those
sub-expression's data will be completely bogus after the adjustment,
should the buffer-modification hooks use save-match-data.

> So I think a safe fix is to try and relax the check we added to
> replace-match so it doesn't get all worked up when something ≥ EOB gets
> changed to something else that's also ≥ EOB.

And lose the other sub-expressions in a more general case?  Really?

> Or maybe instead of signaling an error, we could simply skip the "Adjust
> search data for this change".

That would still sweep the problem under the carpet, leaving the match
data bogus, so I don't like doing that.

> This said, I don't fully understand what's going on: bug#23869 reported
> a crash, but AFAICT the match-data here is only used to adjust
> search_regs which seems like it wouldn't cause a crash, even if the new
> values are bogus.

The crash in bug#23869 was due to this:

  newpoint = search_regs.start[sub] + SCHARS (newtext);
  [...]
  /* Now move point "officially" to the start of the inserted replacement.  */
  move_if_not_intangible (newpoint);  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

because due to clobbering, newpoint became -1.

> > -	'((save-match-data-internal (match-data)))
> > +	'((save-match-data-internal (match-data 'integers)))
> 
> That looks risky.

Then how about manually doing the equivalent of save-match-data around
the call to replace_range, calling match-data with non-nil argument?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.