Skip to content

Comments

fix: ensure BufferBuilder::truncate doesn't overset length#9288

Merged
alamb merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
Jefffrey:fix-buffer-truncate
Jan 29, 2026
Merged

fix: ensure BufferBuilder::truncate doesn't overset length#9288
alamb merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
Jefffrey:fix-buffer-truncate

Conversation

@Jefffrey
Copy link
Contributor

@Jefffrey Jefffrey commented Jan 28, 2026

Which issue does this PR close?

Rationale for this change

Miri reports undefined behaviour because truncate didn't check new length when setting the length for BufferBuilder, meaning when used in conjunction with as_slice_mut the pointer could potentially be dereferenced for memory beyond its allocation.

What changes are included in this PR?

Ensure we bound length in BufferBuilder so truncating to a larger length does not change the length.

Are these changes tested?

Added test.

Are there any user-facing changes?

No.

@Jefffrey Jefffrey requested review from alamb and tustvold January 28, 2026 03:32
@github-actions github-actions bot added the arrow Changes to the arrow crate label Jan 28, 2026
@jhorstmann
Copy link
Contributor

I was going to suggest to assert instead of using the minimum, but the method docs already say

If len is greater than the builder's current length, this has no effect

So agree, this makes the impl match the existing specification. 👍

Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 thank you

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Jan 28, 2026

I was going to suggest to assert instead of using the minimum, but the method docs already say

If len is greater than the builder's current length, this has no effect

So agree, this makes the impl match the existing specification. 👍

I think this is also consistent with Vec: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.truncate

@alamb alamb merged commit 5f51e95 into apache:main Jan 29, 2026
27 of 28 checks passed
@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Jan 29, 2026

Thanks again @Jefffrey and @jhorstmann

@Jefffrey Jefffrey deleted the fix-buffer-truncate branch January 29, 2026 23:13
@Jefffrey
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @yilin0518 for reporting this

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Jan 30, 2026

I think we should backport this to the 57 patch release I am preparing

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Jan 30, 2026

(I will make a PR to do so)

alamb pushed a commit to alamb/arrow-rs that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2026
…9288)

# Which issue does this PR close?

<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases.
You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax.
-->

- Closes apache#9286

# Rationale for this change

<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly
in the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand
your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
-->

Miri reports undefined behaviour because `truncate` didn't check new
length when setting the length for `BufferBuilder`, meaning when used in
conjunction with `as_slice_mut` the pointer could potentially be
dereferenced for memory beyond its allocation.

# What changes are included in this PR?

<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it
is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this
PR.
-->

Ensure we bound length in BufferBuilder so truncating to a larger length
does not change the length.

# Are these changes tested?

<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code

If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example,
are they covered by existing tests)?
-->

Added test.

# Are there any user-facing changes?

<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.

If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please call them out.
-->

No.
@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Jan 30, 2026

alamb added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 2, 2026
…t length (#9288) (#9311)

- Part of #9240
- Related to #9286

This is a backport of the following PR to the 57 line
- #9288 from @Jefffrey

Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Vo <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

arrow Changes to the arrow crate

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

arrow-buffer: Potential Undefined Behavior Reported by Miri

3 participants