Thank you for your quick response and patch. I hope that this is fixed in
the next 1.8.x release and that CollabNet will also release an update to
I'm still not so clear how this is exactly a problem with svnrdump 1.8.19
(from Subversion Edge). This is my first time browsing through the svn
source code, and I hope you'll indulge me with my questions below.
We are using Subversion Edge 5.2.2 (Windows 64-bit) on a Windows Server
2012 (64-bit) OS.
I also verified that the httpd.exe, svn.exe, and svnrdump.exe binaries are
64-bit. (I ran the "file xxx" command in Cygwin and also checked their PE
signatures as described here:
> SVN_ERR(svn_stream_printf(eb->stream, pool,
(unsigned long)info->size +
> info->size is apr_off_t ... probably 64 bits on most systems.
> propstring->len is apr_size_t ... probably 64 bits on most systems.
> It uses "%lu" for the text content, which thus work OK up to 4 GB, and
"%ld" for the overall content length which thus only works up to 2 GB.
On a 64-bit system where unsigned long is uint64:
If info->size is int64 and propstring->len is uint64, then the expression
"(unsigned long)info->size + propstring->len" will produce uint64. This
result should be printed with "%lu" (as in your patch). However, printing
the result with "%ld" will still print a positive value (signed int64), I
If for some reason, info->size is just int32, then it can only store max
int32 (2 GB). So the earlier call to apr_file_info_get should already have
failed if the file size is greater than 2 GB.
err = apr_file_info_get(info, APR_FINFO_SIZE, eb->delta_file);
However, apr_file_info_get did not return an error; so it just
somehow returned a negative value in info->size?
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> (dropping users@)
>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>> The attached patch should fix it; not yet tested.
> Proposed for backport to 1.8.x.
> - Julian
> I have opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4707
>> and attached the patch there. (Patch v2 is same as v1 but with tweaked
>> log message.)
>> We briefly discussed testing. It's a pretty obvious fix, but ideally we
>> would write a regression test. We don't want to store 2 GB* of temporary
>> data during a test run (that would make testing onerous) so we would need
>> to write a test that generates data, streams it to the rdump 'dump'
>> function, pipes that into the rdump 'load', and checks that it parses
>> without throwing errors, without storing the loaded data.
>> Anyone interested in writing such a test?
>> * Actually we should test with over 4 GB because as well as the "%ld"
>> bug I found and fixed a "%lu" bug in nearby code at the same time.
>> - Julian
Received on 2017-11-23 11:53:32 CET