Skip to content

Fix heap-based buffer overflow in GetReturnCallDropKeepCount by adding checks in OnReturnCallExpr #2689

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
PGZXB wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+3 −0
Open

Fix heap-based buffer overflow in GetReturnCallDropKeepCount by adding checks in OnReturnCallExpr #2689

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
f028ea0
Fix heap-based buffer overflow in GetReturnCallDropKeepCount by addin…
PGZXB Feb 10, 2026
29aae2e
Merge branch 'main' into dev-fix-2557
PGZXB Feb 14, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions src/interp/binary-reader-interp.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1243,6 +1243,9 @@ Result BinaryReaderInterp::OnReturnCallExpr(Index func_index) {
CHECK_RESULT(
validator_.OnReturnCall(GetLocation(), Var(func_index, GetLocation())));

if (func_index >= func_types_.size()) {
Copy link
Member

@sbc100 sbc100 Feb 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would hope that the validation would fail 2 lines above if func_index was out of range, no?

i.e. this seems like a validation error that should be handled elsewhere.

if you want to continue with this PR please add a failing test case.

return Result::Error;
}
FuncType& func_type = func_types_[func_index];

Index drop_count, keep_count, catch_drop_count;
Expand Down
Loading