1. 01 Feb, 2017 1 commit
    • antirez's avatar
      Ziplist: insertion bug under particular conditions fixed. · 48e24d54
      antirez authored
      Ziplists had a bug that was discovered while investigating a different
      issue, resulting in a corrupted ziplist representation, and a likely
      segmentation foult and/or data corruption of the last element of the
      ziplist, once the ziplist is accessed again.
      
      The bug happens when a specific set of insertions / deletions is
      performed so that an entry is encoded to have a "prevlen" field (the
      length of the previous entry) of 5 bytes but with a count that could be
      encoded in a "prevlen" field of a since byte. This could happen when the
      "cascading update" process called by ziplistInsert()/ziplistDelete() in
      certain contitious forces the prevlen to be bigger than necessary in
      order to avoid too much data moving around.
      
      Once such an entry is generated, inserting a very small entry
      immediately before it will result in a resizing of the ziplist for a
      count smaller than the current ziplist length (which is a violation,
      inserting code expects the ziplist to get bigger actually). So an FF
      byte is inserted in a misplaced position. Moreover a realloc() is
      performed with a count smaller than the ziplist current length so the
      final bytes could be trashed as well.
      
      SECURITY IMPLICATIONS:
      
      Currently it looks like an attacker can only crash a Redis server by
      providing specifically choosen commands. However a FF byte is written
      and there are other memory operations that depend on a wrong count, so
      even if it is not immediately apparent how to mount an attack in order
      to execute code remotely, it is not impossible at all that this could be
      done. Attacks always get better... and we did not spent enough time in
      order to think how to exploit this issue, but security researchers
      or malicious attackers could.
      48e24d54
  2. 06 Oct, 2014 2 commits
  3. 26 Aug, 2014 1 commit
  4. 19 Aug, 2013 1 commit
  5. 28 Jan, 2013 1 commit
  6. 19 Nov, 2012 1 commit
  7. 08 Nov, 2012 1 commit
  8. 13 Aug, 2012 2 commits
  9. 18 Jul, 2012 1 commit
    • antirez's avatar
      Don't assume that "char" is signed. · b62bdf1c
      antirez authored
      For the C standard char can be either signed or unsigned, it's up to the
      compiler, but Redis assumed that it was signed in a few places.
      
      The practical effect of this patch is that now Redis 2.6 will run
      correctly in every system where char is unsigned, notably the RaspBerry
      PI and other ARM systems with GCC.
      
      Thanks to Georgi Marinov (@eesn on twitter) that reported the problem
      and allowed me to use his RaspBerry via SSH to trace and fix the issue!
      b62bdf1c
  10. 14 Jun, 2012 1 commit
    • antirez's avatar
      ziplistFind(): don't assume that entries are comparable by encoding. · ba779119
      antirez authored
      Because Redis 2.6 introduced new integer encodings it is no longer true
      that if two entries have a different encoding they are not equal.
      
      An old ziplist can be loaded from an RDB file generated with Redis 2.4,
      in this case for instance a small unsigned integers is encoded with a
      16 bit encoding, while in Redis 2.6 a more specific 8 bit encoding
      format is used.
      
      Because of this bug hashes ended with duplicated values or fields lookup
      failed, causing many bad behaviors.
      This in turn caused a crash while converting the ziplist encoded hash into
      a real hash table because an assertion was raised on duplicated elements.
      
      This commit fixes issue #547.
      
      Many thanks to Pinterest's Marty Weiner and colleagues for discovering
      the problem and helping us in the debugging process.
      ba779119
  11. 06 May, 2012 1 commit
    • Pieter Noordhuis's avatar
      Compare integers in ziplist regardless of encoding · bf219416
      Pieter Noordhuis authored
      Because of the introduction of new integer encoding types for ziplists
      in the 2.6 tree, the same integer value may have a different encoding in
      different versions of the ziplist implementation. This means that the
      encoding can NOT be used as a fast path in comparing integers.
      bf219416
  12. 24 Apr, 2012 4 commits
  13. 23 Mar, 2012 1 commit
  14. 14 Feb, 2012 1 commit
  15. 09 Feb, 2012 3 commits
  16. 08 Feb, 2012 2 commits
  17. 04 Jan, 2012 1 commit
    • Pieter Noordhuis's avatar
      Implements ziplistFind · fe458402
      Pieter Noordhuis authored
      To improve the performance of the ziplist implementation, some
      functions have been converted to macros to avoid unnecessary stack
      movement and duplicate variable assignments.
      fe458402
  18. 23 Oct, 2011 1 commit
  19. 05 May, 2011 2 commits
  20. 14 Mar, 2011 1 commit
  21. 09 Mar, 2011 1 commit
  22. 28 Feb, 2011 1 commit
  23. 23 Dec, 2010 1 commit
  24. 07 Dec, 2010 1 commit
  25. 02 Nov, 2010 1 commit
  26. 14 Oct, 2010 1 commit
  27. 23 Sep, 2010 1 commit
  28. 06 Sep, 2010 2 commits
  29. 13 Aug, 2010 1 commit
  30. 27 Jul, 2010 1 commit