date: safely handle oversized format modifier widths by jorgitin02 · Pull Request #11085 · uutils/coreutils

jorgitin02 · 2026-02-24T03:18:06Z

Fixes #11044 by making Mon Feb 23 22:18:00 EST 2026 reject huge format-width modifiers safely instead of
panicking.\n\nChanges:\n- make modifier width handling fallible and return a normal format
error for oversized widths\n- add localized error message\n- add regression coverage for
extreme width format specifiers

cakebaker · 2026-02-24T08:39:59Z

Can you please run cargo fmt? Thanks.

cakebaker · 2026-02-24T08:41:04Z

src/uu/date/locales/fr-FR.ftl

 lorsqu'une option est utilisée pour spécifier une ou plusieurs dates, tout argument autre 
  qu'une option doit être une chaîne de format commençant par un signe '+'.
+date-error-format-modifier-width-too-large = la largeur du modificateur de format '{$width}' est trop grande pour le spécificateur '%{$specifier}'
+date-error-format-modifier-width-too-large = la largeur du modificateur de format '{$width}' est trop grande pour le spécificateur '%{$specifier}'


The entry is a duplicate.

Suggested change

date-error-format-modifier-width-too-large = la largeur du modificateur de format '{$width}' est trop grande pour le spécificateur '%{$specifier}'

sylvestre · 2026-02-24T13:09:58Z

how is it different from #11053 ?

jorgitin02 · 2026-02-24T22:05:32Z

Correction to previous comment (shell ate inline formatting):\n\nAddressed in cf48f33:\n- ran rustfmt on the touched Rust files\n- removed the duplicate date-error-format-modifier-width-too-large entry in src/uu/date/locales/fr-FR.ftl\n\nRegarding #11053: that earlier PR uses a hard cap (1024) on width. This PR takes a different approach by making width/padding handling fully fallible and returning a normal format error for oversized widths (no arbitrary cap), while preserving normal behavior for valid widths.

sylvestre · 2026-02-24T22:13:37Z

@jorgitin02 your previous comment isn't correctly formatted

also, why:

you didn't updated the previous PR instead?
closed it?
thanks

github-actions · 2026-02-24T22:14:54Z

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/tail/retry. tests/tail/retry is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Skip an intermittent issue tests/date/date-locale-hour (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skip an intermittent issue tests/pr/bounded-memory (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)

jorgitin02 · 2026-02-24T22:22:03Z

CI follow-up: the previous run reported a GNU regression in tests/tail/retry (aggregate gate) while that test passes on main. I rebased date-11044-clean onto current upstream/main and force-pushed. New head is f0e2af6; rerun is in progress.

codspeed-hq · 2026-02-24T22:22:55Z

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 294 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 42 skipped benchmarks¹

_{Comparing jorgitin02:date-11044-clean (b8948ff) with main (72ec8cf)}

42 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

sylvestre · 2026-02-24T22:34:39Z

retry is unrelated

jorgitin02 · 2026-02-24T22:34:56Z

CI status clarification:\n- The failure emails currently arriving are from older runs on previous head cf48f33 (including GNU aggregate).\n- Current PR head is f0e2af6 (rebased onto latest main).\n- New workflow runs for this head were created in action_required state (0 jobs), so they need a maintainer to click Approve and run before checks can execute.\n\nOnce approved, the new runs should give the real status for the rebased head.

github-actions · 2026-02-24T22:49:05Z

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/date/resolution. tests/date/resolution is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Skip an intermittent issue tests/tail/inotify-dir-recreate (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)

github-actions · 2026-02-25T06:45:14Z

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/date/date-locale-hour (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Note: The gnu test tests/expand/bounded-memory is now being skipped but was previously passing.

sylvestre · 2026-02-25T08:10:48Z

CI status clarification:\n- The failure emails currently arriving are from older runs on previous head cf48f33 (including GNU aggregate).\n- Current PR head is f0e2af6 (rebased onto latest main).\n- New workflow runs for this head were created in action_required state (0 jobs), so they need a maintainer to click Approve and run before checks can execute.\n\nOnce approved, the new runs should give the real status for the rebased head.

please ask your LLM to format your message correctly...
and you still haven't closed #11053

sylvestre · 2026-02-25T08:11:13Z

src/uu/date/src/format_modifiers.rs

+                write!(
+                    f,
+                    "{}",
+                    get_message_with_args("date-error-format-modifier-width-too-large", args)


please use the translate! macro

sylvestre · 2026-02-25T08:12:16Z

src/uu/date/src/format_modifiers.rs

        } else {
            // Default: pad on the left (e.g., "  -22" or "  1999")
-            result = format!("{}{result}", pad_char.to_string().repeat(padding));
+            let target_len = result.len().checked_add(padding).ok_or_else(|| {


please ask your LLM to deduplicate this code

Thanks for the callout. You’re right about the formatting; I reformatted the status message.
To avoid duplicate review, I’m closing #11053 and keeping the scoped fix in this PR only.

cakebaker reviewed Feb 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

jorgitin02 added 2 commits February 24, 2026 17:20

date: handle oversized format modifier widths safely

dac58d9

date: fix l10n duplicate and apply rustfmt

f0e2af6

jorgitin02 force-pushed the date-11044-clean branch from cf48f33 to f0e2af6 Compare February 24, 2026 22:20

ci: retrigger flaky checks

b8948ff

sylvestre reviewed Feb 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into date-11044-clean

5ddeb63

jorgitin02 closed this Feb 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Conversation

jorgitin02 commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

cakebaker commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

cakebaker Feb 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sylvestre commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

jorgitin02 commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

sylvestre commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

jorgitin02 commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq bot commented Feb 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Footnotes

Uh oh!

sylvestre commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

jorgitin02 commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

sylvestre commented Feb 25, 2026

Uh oh!

sylvestre Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sylvestre Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jorgitin02 Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

codspeed-hq bot commented Feb 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading