-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34.8k
gh-152682: Fix NULL dereference on OOM in symtable_visit_type_param_bound_or_default #152684
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
+23
−0
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions
3
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Core_and_Builtins/2026-06-30-14-00-00.gh-issue-152682.yId7e5.rst
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
| Fix NULL pointer dereference in :func:`compile` when a reserved name (e.g. | ||
| ``__classdict__``) is used as a type parameter name and memory allocation | ||
| fails while formatting the error message. |
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test passes for me on
main.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I also couldn't reproduce it reliably. After investigating, it seems
_testcapi.set_nomemory(0)replaces the global CPython allocator with a stub, and there are many allocations happening between theset_nomemory(0)call andPyUnicode_FromFormatinsidecompile(), so OOM typically hits one of them first. I verified this with a coverage build - the relevant lines are never reached.I also tried manually injecting an OOM condition in the C code - without the fix it does produce SIGSEGV, confirming the bug is real.
In principle, we could add a fault injection hook in the debug build and expose it via
_testinternalcapi. But I think the simpler option is to drop the OOM test entirely - the fix is a straightforward NULL check, and the existingtest_disallowed_type_param_names()already covers the code path. What do you think?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The test isn't doing anything, please remove it. In general we just don't test these cases.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See please, - #152770