Fix take_bytes Null and Overflow Handling (#4576) #4579
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
tustvold
commented
Jul 28, 2023
| if array.is_valid(index) { | ||
| let s: &[u8] = array.value(index).as_ref(); | ||
|
|
||
| length_so_far += T::Offset::from_usize(s.len()).unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This wasn't performing checked arithmetic and so could silently overflow
tustvold
commented
Jul 28, 2023
| if array.is_valid(index) { | ||
| let s: &[u8] = array.value(index).as_ref(); | ||
|
|
||
| length_so_far += T::Offset::from_usize(s.len()).unwrap(); | ||
| values.extend_from_slice(s.as_ref()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We piggy back on the fact this already does checked arithmetic
tustvold
changed the title
alamb
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you @tustvold -- I went through this PR carefully and it looks good to me logic wise. I defer to you and others for performance.
Maybe this is something @jhorstmann or @viirya are interested in reviewing as well
I also verified that without the code changes in this PR the test fails like
---- take::tests::test_take_bytes_null_indices stdout ----
thread 'take::tests::test_take_bytes_null_indices' panicked at 'assertion failed: idx < self.len', /Users/alamb/Software/arrow-rs2/arrow-buffer/src/buffer/boolean.rs:133:9
stack backtrace:
0: rust_begin_unwind
at /rustc/8ede3aae28fe6e4d52b38157d7bfe0d3bceef225/library/std/src/panicking.rs:593:5
1: core::panicking::panic_fmt
at /rustc/8ede3aae28fe6e4d52b38157d7bfe0d3bceef225/library/core/src/panicking.rs:67:14
2: core::panicking::panic
at /rustc/8ede3aae28fe6e4d52b38157d7bfe0d3bceef225/library/core/src/panicking.rs:117:5
3: arrow_buffer::buffer::boolean::BooleanBuffer::value
at /Users/alamb/Software/arrow-rs2/arrow-buffer/src/buffer/boolean.rs:133:9
4: arrow_buffer::buffer::null::NullBuffer::is_valid
at /Users/alamb/Software/arrow-rs2/arrow-buffer/src/buffer/null.rs:145:9
5: arrow_buffer::buffer::null::NullBuffer::is_null
at /Users/alamb/Software/arrow-rs2/arrow-buffer/src/buffer/null.rs:151:10
6: arrow_array::array::Array::is_null::{{closure}}
at /Users/alamb/Software/arrow-rs2/arrow-array/src/array/mod.rs:193:30
7: core::option::Option<T>::map
at /rustc/8ede3aae28fe6e4d52b38157d7bfe0d3bceef225/library/core/src/option.rs:1075:29
8: arrow_array::array::Array::is_null
at /Users/alamb/Software/arrow-rs2/arrow-array/src/array/mod.rs:193:9
9: arrow_array::array::Array::is_valid
at /Users/alamb/Software/arrow-rs2/arrow-array/src/array/mod.rs:210:10
10: arrow_select::take::take_bytes
at ./src/take.rs:404:16
11: arrow_select::take::take_impl
at ./src/take.rs:126:25
12: arrow_select::take::take
at ./src/take.rs:81:5
13: arrow_select::take::tests::test_take_bytes_null_indices
at ./src/take.rs:1960:17
14: arrow_select::take::tests::test_take_bytes_null_indices::{{closure}}
at ./src/take.rs:1954:39
15: core::ops::function::FnOnce::call_once
at /rustc/8ede3aae28fe6e4d52b38157d7bfe0d3bceef225/library/core/src/ops/function.rs:250:5
16: core::ops::function::FnOnce::call_once
at /rustc/8ede3aae28fe6e4d52b38157d7bfe0d3bceef225/library/core/src/ops/function.rs:250:5
note: Some details are omitted, run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=full` for a verbose backtrace.
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn test_take_bytes_null_indices() { | ||
| let indices = Int32Array::new( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| let indices = Int32Array::new( | |
| // Build indices with values that out of bounds, but NULL so they | |
| // will not be checked | |
| let indices = Int32Array::new( |
| if array.is_valid(index) && indices.is_valid(i) { | ||
| offsets.extend(indices.values().iter().enumerate().map(|(i, index)| { | ||
| let index = index.as_usize(); | ||
| if indices.is_valid(i) && array.is_valid(index) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is the actual fix for the bug, right? that indices.is_valid is checked prior to array.is_valid?
Suggested change
| if indices.is_valid(i) && array.is_valid(index) { | |
| // check index is valid before using index. The value in | |
| // NULL index slots may not be within bounds of array | |
| if indices.is_valid(i) && array.is_valid(index) { |
| nulls = Some(null_buf.into()); | ||
| } else if array.null_count() == 0 { | ||
| for (i, offset) in offsets.iter_mut().skip(1).enumerate() { | ||
| offsets.extend(indices.values().iter().enumerate().map(|(i, index)| { | ||
| if indices.is_valid(i) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| if indices.is_valid(i) { | |
| // check index is valid before using index. The value in | |
| // NULL index slots may not be within bounds of array | |
| if indices.is_valid(i) { |
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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #4576
Rationale for this change
This fixes the overflow and null checking behaviour of take_bytes. This does regress the performance slightly, but I think this is acceptable given the prior logic was incorrect.
What changes are included in this PR?
Are there any user-facing changes?