XALANJ-2725: Fix for when UTF16 surrogate pair crosses buffer boundaries #184
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
…lution, and I'm not sure whether any of the other surrogate handling needs similar fixes -- I don't know whether they ever run into the buffer break problem.
…er ended in a high surrogate.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes the specific buffer-crossing issue tested in the associated xalan-test branch.
As discussed in XALANJ-2725, there are still some edge conditions possible here. But it fixes one known bad case, and at least partially guards against another.
My preferred fix would be to have malformed UTF16 input throw exceptions rather than trying to dance around this to output (unusable) Numeric Character References for isolated surrogates, but the code is currently inconsistent about that and seems to suggest that we moved away from that for some reason... and I don't recall why we thought the fake-NCRs were a good idea.
If we stay with fake-NCRs for isolated surrogates, I'm seriously considering changing them to be fake-entity-references, which will at least not be syntactically incorrect; this could be done by replacing the current output, eg
�, with something more like&ERR_INVALID_UTF16_SURROGATE_55308;, using the MsgKey string so we at least are in synch with the internationalization layer for clarity.