[Bug 61349] Add more sanity checks for byte[] allocation

[bugzilla]

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61349

Dominik Stadler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from Dominik Stadler  ---
I think this is mostly fixed now, new items can be handled in separate issues
if necessary.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org

[Bug 61349] Add more sanity checks for byte[] allocation

[bugzilla]

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61349

--- Comment #4 from Tim Allison  ---
Wow.  Thank you, Dominik!  I'm surprised there weren't more problems.

In r1809623, I bumped the following to 10MB:

PPDrawing
PPDrawingGroup
PlexOfCps
ExOleObjStg
ListLevel
SoundData

I bumped the following to 100MB:
EscherBlipRecord

There are still a few records with some pretty big sizes, but, that's the point
of this fix, e.g.: 536,871,012, 2,013,296,702, 1,451,486,230  :)

Thank you, again, Dominik!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org

[Bug 61349] Add more sanity checks for byte[] allocation

[bugzilla]

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61349

--- Comment #3 from Dominik Stadler  ---
I ran a regression test run with the new limitations. 

Out of 1.1 million documents only 80 differences occurred in 4.0.0 compared to
3.17.

Out of these 19 were OOMs that probably happened before as well.

Thus only 61 documents fail with the new limit. 

I saw that almost all of them are in the 1-2MB range, a few try to allocate a
bit more than 2MB, so if we raise the limit to 2.5MB, we should be safe for
almost all documents of this corpus.

See
http://people.apache.org/~centic/poi_regression/reportsAll/index317to400SNAPSHOT.html
for details.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org

[Bug 61349] Add more sanity checks for byte[] allocation

[bugzilla]

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61349

--- Comment #2 from Javen O'Neal  ---
Should we be making better use of the transient modifier when allocating
performance-related data structures?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org

[Bug 61349] Add more sanity checks for byte[] allocation

[bugzilla]

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61349

--- Comment #1 from Tim Allison  ---
r1809169 initial commit.

I tried to avoid checks in "serialize()" methods on the theory that the object
has already been collected, it should be good.

I also avoided most checks where there was a copy of an existing array.

We'll likely have to increase some of the thresholds, and I look forward to
running these mods against our regression sets.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org

[Bug 61349] Add more sanity checks for byte[] allocation

[bugzilla]

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61349

Dominik Stadler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 OS||All

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org