[erlang-bugs] Erlang problems with big binaries
Mikael Pettersson
mikpelinux@REDACTED
Sat Jan 24 20:17:05 CET 2015
Mikael Pettersson writes:
> Mikael Pettersson writes:
> > Nico Kruber writes:
> > > I'd like to 'bor' (binary or) a big binary but the result is an empty list(?!)
> > > Smaller binaries work as expected.
> > >
> > > Steps to reproduce (at least on Erlang 17.4):
> > >
> > > A=erlang:term_to_binary(lists:seq(1000000,2200000)).
> > > B=erlang:term_to_binary(lists:seq(1000001,2200001)).
> > > ASize=erlang:bit_size(A).
> > > BSize=erlang:bit_size(B).
> > > <<ANr:ASize>> = A.
> > > <<BNr:BSize>> = B.
> > > XNr = ANr bor BNr.
> > > <<XNr:BSize>>.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please note that printing the actual values of A or B is not a good idea ;)
> > > and so would XNr but including it directly into a binary fails with the same
> > > error: "** exception error: bad argument"
> > > <<(ANr bor BNr):BSize>>.
> >
> > The problem is that erts/emulator/beam/big.c:big_norm() contains:
> >
> > if ((arity = BIG_NEED_SIZE(xl)-1) > BIG_ARITY_MAX)
> > return NIL; /* signal error (too big) */
> >
> > where BIG_ARITY_MAX is 0x7ffff, but:
> >
> > 1) this is an implementation restriction which can, as this
> > case proves, be exceeded by simple application code, and
> >
> > 2) erts_{band,bor,bxor}() check for this with ASSERT(is_not_nil(...)),
> > but that's wrong since this is about input validation and implementation
> > limits not fundamental logic, and it's ineffective for release builds.
> >
> > These three functions need to turn this case into a system limit
> > exception, just like a lot of other places in erl_arith.c already do.
> > (Well, at least _bor() and _bxor() do, perhaps _band() doesn't need to.)
>
> Actually, it's worse than I thought. Observe:
>
> 1> A=erlang:term_to_binary(lists:seq(1000000,2200000)).
> <<131,108,0,18,79,129,98,0,15,66,64,98,0,15,66,65,98,0,15,
> 66,66,98,0,15,66,67,98,0,15,...>>
> 2> ASize=erlang:bit_size(A).
> 48000096
> 3> <<ANr:ASize>> = A.
> <<131,108,0,18,79,129,98,0,15,66,64,98,0,15,66,65,98,0,15,
> 66,66,98,0,15,66,67,98,0,15,...>>
> 4> ANr band ANr.
> big_norm: xl 750002 arity 0xb71b2 > 0x7ffff
> beam/erl_arith.c:1050:erts_band() Assertion failed: ((arg1) != ((~((Uint) 0) << 6) | ((0x3 << 4) | ((0x2 << 2) | 0x3))))
> Abort
>
> So band:ing a bignum with itself (which by definition requires no more
> bits than the input bignum) triggers the limit check. I also get errors
> for trivial ops like ANr - 1.
>
> Looks like <<ANr:ASize>> = A can construct invalid bignums.
In the general case, this calls erl_bits.c:erts_bs_get_integer_2(), which
calls big.c:bytes_to_big(). Nothing here enforces the BIG_ARITY_MAX limit.
However, most arithmetic does, via big_norm().
Also, I personally think BIG_ARITY_MAX is way too small -- we can build
both tuples and binaries much larger than that.
I'm thinking bytes_to_big() needs to mirror big_norm()'s error checking
behaviour, and erts_bs_get_integer_2() needs to check for an error
return (NIL) from bytes_to_big() and return THE_NON_VALUE in that case
(after restoring p->htop).
More information about the erlang-bugs
mailing list