Fix quadratic backtracking on invalid URI #2788
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Because we only quantize URLs that are typically valid and in control of the ddtrace user instead of the general arbitrary URI case, impact should be lower than of the linked CVE. Still, worth a fix. Upstream details: - CVE report: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2023/03/28/redos-in-uri-cve-2023-28755/ - Taken from: ruby/uri@eaf89cc - Full changeset: ruby/uri@v0.12.0...v0.12.1
marcotc
approved these changes
Apr 13, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What does this PR do?
Fix quadratic backtracking on invalid URI
Motivation
RFC3986_URLregexAdditional Notes
Because we only quantize URLs that are typically valid and in control of the ddtrace user instead of the general arbitrary URI case, impact should be lower than of the linked CVE.
Still, worth a fix.
Upstream details:
How to test the change?
Should still pass CI.
I did not port the test because I don't think we have any equivalent of
assert_linear_performance.