Validate sparse tensors constructed via legacy constructor #147408
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
[ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/147408
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ⏳ No Failures, 2 PendingAs of commit a666d8b with merge base b10ba0a ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
provided exploit now errors with RuntimeError: Storage size calculation overflowed with sizes=[2] and strides=[1] during torch.load [ghstack-poisoned]
provided exploit now errors with RuntimeError: size is inconsistent with indices: for dim 0, size is 1 but found index 4702111234474983745 during torch.load [ghstack-poisoned]
albanD
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2025
| "size is inconsistent with indices: for dim 0, size is 1 but found index 4702111234474983745" | ||
| ): | ||
| x = torch.sparse.FloatTensor( | ||
| torch.tensor([[4702111234474983745], [0]]), |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: you can use 3 as the index here to avoid the weirdly large value. It should fail the same way !
Contributor
Author
|
We actually can't do this due to the reason I explained re legacy_load, closing this PR and will reopen another one |
mikaylagawarecki
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2025
…constructor to _sparse_tensors_to_validate" This is a redo of #147408 which added validation at the end of the legacy constructor calls. The reason why I didn't land that was because in `legacy_load`, constructor would be called before storages of indices/values are set. So the tensor would not actually be validated. Technically, torch.sparse.{Foo}Tensor should not even be called by our rebuild process since afaict this was the first PR that added support for sparse tensor serialization #27062 and it already uses `_rebuild_sparse_tensor` (which would add the rebuilt tensor to the list to validate), but torch.sparse.FooTensor is allowlisted This PR adds tensors constructed as such to the list to validate at the end of torch.load. [ghstack-poisoned]
mikaylagawarecki
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2025
…sparse_tensors_to_validate" This is a redo of #147408 which added validation at the end of the legacy constructor calls. The reason why I didn't land that was because in `legacy_load`, constructor would be called before storages of indices/values are set. So the tensor would not actually be validated. Technically, torch.sparse.{Foo}Tensor should not even be called by our rebuild process since afaict this was the first PR that added support for sparse tensor serialization #27062 and it already uses `_rebuild_sparse_tensor` (which would add the rebuilt tensor to the list to validate), but torch.sparse.FooTensor is allowlisted This PR adds tensors constructed as such to the list to validate at the end of torch.load. [ghstack-poisoned]
mikaylagawarecki
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2025
…constructor to _sparse_tensors_to_validate" This is a redo of #147408 which added validation at the end of the legacy constructor calls. The reason why I didn't land that was because in `legacy_load`, constructor would be called before storages of indices/values are set. So the tensor would not actually be validated. Technically, torch.sparse.{Foo}Tensor should not even be called by our rebuild process since afaict this was the first PR that added support for sparse tensor serialization #27062 and it already uses `_rebuild_sparse_tensor` (which would add the rebuilt tensor to the list to validate), but torch.sparse.FooTensor is allowlisted This PR adds tensors constructed as such to the list to validate at the end of torch.load. [ghstack-poisoned]
mikaylagawarecki
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2025
…sparse_tensors_to_validate" This is a redo of #147408 which added validation at the end of the legacy constructor calls. The reason why I didn't land that was because in `legacy_load`, constructor would be called before storages of indices/values are set. So the tensor would not actually be validated. Technically, torch.sparse.{Foo}Tensor should not even be called by our rebuild process since afaict this was the first PR that added support for sparse tensor serialization #27062 and it already uses `_rebuild_sparse_tensor` (which would add the rebuilt tensor to the list to validate), but torch.sparse.FooTensor is allowlisted This PR adds tensors constructed as such to the list to validate at the end of torch.load. [ghstack-poisoned]
mikaylagawarecki
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2025
…constructor to _sparse_tensors_to_validate" This is a redo of #147408 which added validation at the end of the legacy constructor calls. The reason why I didn't land that was because in `legacy_load`, constructor would be called before storages of indices/values are set. So the tensor would not actually be validated. Technically, torch.sparse.{Foo}Tensor should not even be called by our rebuild process since afaict this was the first PR that added support for sparse tensor serialization #27062 and it already uses `_rebuild_sparse_tensor` (which would add the rebuilt tensor to the list to validate), but torch.sparse.FooTensor is allowlisted This PR adds tensors constructed as such to the list to validate at the end of torch.load. [ghstack-poisoned]
mikaylagawarecki
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2025
…sparse_tensors_to_validate" This is a redo of #147408 which added validation at the end of the legacy constructor calls. The reason why I didn't land that was because in `legacy_load`, constructor would be called before storages of indices/values are set. So the tensor would not actually be validated. Technically, torch.sparse.{Foo}Tensor should not even be called by our rebuild process since afaict this was the first PR that added support for sparse tensor serialization #27062 and it already uses `_rebuild_sparse_tensor` (which would add the rebuilt tensor to the list to validate), but torch.sparse.FooTensor is allowlisted This PR adds tensors constructed as such to the list to validate at the end of torch.load. [ghstack-poisoned]
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2025
…ors_to_validate (#147759) This is a redo of #147408 which added validation at the end of the legacy constructor calls. The reason why I didn't land that was because in `legacy_load`, constructor would be called before storages of indices/values are set. So the tensor would not actually be validated. Technically, torch.sparse.{Foo}Tensor should not even be called by our rebuild process since afaict this was the first PR that added support for sparse tensor serialization #27062 and it already uses `_rebuild_sparse_tensor` (which would add the rebuilt tensor to the list to validate), but torch.sparse.FooTensor is allowlisted This PR adds tensors constructed as such to the list to validate at the end of torch.load. Pull Request resolved: #147759 Approved by: https://github.com/albanD
aditew01
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2025
…ors_to_validate (#147759) This is a redo of #147408 which added validation at the end of the legacy constructor calls. The reason why I didn't land that was because in `legacy_load`, constructor would be called before storages of indices/values are set. So the tensor would not actually be validated. Technically, torch.sparse.{Foo}Tensor should not even be called by our rebuild process since afaict this was the first PR that added support for sparse tensor serialization #27062 and it already uses `_rebuild_sparse_tensor` (which would add the rebuilt tensor to the list to validate), but torch.sparse.FooTensor is allowlisted This PR adds tensors constructed as such to the list to validate at the end of torch.load. Pull Request resolved: #147759 Approved by: https://github.com/albanD
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
EDIT: this is not an encompassing fix because of legacy_load, will redo
provided exploit now errors with
RuntimeError: size is inconsistent with indices: for dim 0, size is 1 but found index 4702111234474983745
during torch.load
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):