We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
These attachments are available in the static archive:
Reported in version: 1.2.12 Reported for operating system, platform: All, All
On 2018-12-04 12:34:36 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
Created attachment 3524 XCF file which causes the bug I have a legitimate .xcf file (see attached) which cause SDL 1.2.x to be stuck in an infinite loop when trying to load it.
Created attachment 3524 XCF file which causes the bug
I have a legitimate .xcf file (see attached) which cause SDL 1.2.x to be stuck in an infinite loop when trying to load it.
On 2018-12-04 12:35:50 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
Created attachment 3525 patch for the infinite loop
On 2018-12-04 12:36:24 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
Created attachment 3526 support XCF files with 64bits offsets
On 2018-12-04 12:41:38 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
Created attachment 3527 Patch to ignore load leves > 1, just as Gimp there is a bug in the saving code of gimp https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/issues/2604 So this patch is to avoid loading buggy data
Created attachment 3527 Patch to ignore load leves > 1, just as Gimp
there is a bug in the saving code of gimp https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/issues/2604
So this patch is to avoid loading buggy data
On 2018-12-04 12:42:28 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
I think at least the infinite loop should be patched ASAP as it can causes denial of service attacks
On 2018-12-05 15:58:44 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
These don't cleanly apply. Can you attach new patches against the code in Mercurial? https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL_image/ Thanks!
These don't cleanly apply. Can you attach new patches against the code in Mercurial? https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL_image/
Thanks!
On 2018-12-06 12:27:15 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
my current patches are against SDL_image 1.2.12 I'm going to make patches for SDL_image branch default and SDL-1.2
my current patches are against SDL_image 1.2.12
I'm going to make patches for SDL_image branch default and SDL-1.2
On 2018-12-06 12:34:53 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
Created attachment 3528 patch for the infinite loop - SLD-1.2-current
On 2018-12-06 12:45:42 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
Created attachment 3529 patch to support XCF files with 64bits offset - SDL-1.2-current
On 2018-12-06 12:58:47 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
Created attachment 3530 Patch to ignore load leves > 1, just as Gimp - SDL-1.2-current
On 2018-12-06 13:04:12 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
patch for the infinite loop - SLD-1.2-current also apply cleanly on default (2.0) branch
On 2018-12-06 13:13:57 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
Created attachment 3531 patch to support XCF files with 64bits offset - default branch
On 2018-12-06 13:21:17 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
Created attachment 3532 Patch to ignore load leves > 1, just as Gimp -default branch
On 2018-12-06 13:24:14 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
I attached the patch for both hg branches default and SDL-1.2. patch order : default : SDL_image-1.2-current.XCF_infinite_loop.patch SDL_image-default.XCF.v11_64bits_offsets.patch SDL_image-default.XCF_ignore_levels.patch SDL-1.2 : SDL_image-1.2-current.XCF_infinite_loop.patch SDL_image-1.2-current.XCF_v11_64bits_offsets.hg.patch SDL_image-1.2-current.XCF_ignore_levels.patch
I attached the patch for both hg branches default and SDL-1.2. patch order :
default : SDL_image-1.2-current.XCF_infinite_loop.patch SDL_image-default.XCF.v11_64bits_offsets.patch SDL_image-default.XCF_ignore_levels.patch
SDL-1.2 : SDL_image-1.2-current.XCF_infinite_loop.patch SDL_image-1.2-current.XCF_v11_64bits_offsets.hg.patch SDL_image-1.2-current.XCF_ignore_levels.patch
On 2018-12-08 19:31:42 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
Thank you for the clean set of patches. These are now in: https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL_image/rev/2346808be360 https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL_image/rev/6536f264b1eb https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL_image/rev/d3c9832b95fb https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL_image/rev/68f958f43339 https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL_image/rev/1d88a9866410 https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL_image/rev/1d33bfccd462
On 2020-10-26 16:22:34 +0000, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
The 64bits offset patch, as it seems, broke loading xcf files, both in 1.2 and default branches. See: https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4936
On 2020-10-26 22:36:59 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
(In reply to Ozkan Sezer from comment # 15) The 64bits offset patch, as it seems, broke loading xcf files, both in 1.2 and default branches. See: https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4936 I think I fixed it. See https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4935
(In reply to Ozkan Sezer from comment # 15)
I think I fixed it. See https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4935
On 2020-10-26 23:06:48 +0000, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
(In reply to miniupnp@free.fr from comment # 16) (In reply to Ozkan Sezer from comment # 15) The 64bits offset patch, as it seems, broke loading xcf files, both in 1.2 and default branches. See: https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4936 I think I fixed it. See https://bugzilla.libsdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 OK, tracking the issue in # 4935. Re-closing this one.
(In reply to miniupnp@free.fr from comment # 16)
OK, tracking the issue in # 4935. Re-closing this one.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
This bug report was migrated from our old Bugzilla tracker.
These attachments are available in the static archive:
Reported in version: 1.2.12
Reported for operating system, platform: All, All
Comments on the original bug report:
On 2018-12-04 12:34:36 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-04 12:35:50 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-04 12:36:24 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-04 12:41:38 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-04 12:42:28 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-05 15:58:44 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
On 2018-12-06 12:27:15 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-06 12:34:53 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-06 12:45:42 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-06 12:58:47 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-06 13:04:12 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-06 13:13:57 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-06 13:21:17 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-06 13:24:14 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2018-12-08 19:31:42 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:
On 2020-10-26 16:22:34 +0000, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
On 2020-10-26 22:36:59 +0000, miniupnp@free.fr wrote:
On 2020-10-26 23:06:48 +0000, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: