You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For an input \x01\x02\x03 I would expect y to consume exactly one (N) byte since the filter connected to Y consumes one byte. It looks however as if that is not the case and the &max-size check fails; if I remove the check I still see no data in z so it looks to me as if the filter consumes all input.
Printing filter_input shows a single byte so I suspect this is happening outside of the parsing of F in how we update the view it operates on.
This seems to be broken from at least 1.4.0 on (before d15281b we rejected above reproducer).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The issue here is that we seem to trim too much, at least once in the filter and again for the field. One of these seems to see the wrong cur. Currently we do not set up new parser state for parsing in filters which might be required for some functionality, but I suspect contributes to the issue here.
We would previously assume that a filter would consume all available
data. This only holds if the filter is attached to a top-level unit, but
in general not if some sub-unit uses a filter. With this patch we
explicitly compute how much data is consumed.
Closes#1652.
We would previously assume that a filter would consume all available
data. This only holds if the filter is attached to a top-level unit, but
in general not if some sub-unit uses a filter. With this patch we
explicitly compute how much data is consumed.
Closes#1652.
Given the following code
For an input
\x01\x02\x03
I would expecty
to consume exactly one (N
) byte since the filter connected toY
consumes one byte. It looks however as if that is not the case and the&max-size
check fails; if I remove the check I still see no data inz
so it looks to me as if the filter consumes all input.Printing
filter_input
shows a single byte so I suspect this is happening outside of the parsing ofF
in how we update the view it operates on.This seems to be broken from at least 1.4.0 on (before d15281b we rejected above reproducer).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: