We transform the arrow function by nesting the expression into a return
statement. If we compile the arrow function twice this would be done twice,
leading to a compile assertion.
Fix oss-fuzz #60411
Closes GH-11632
Normally, PHP evaluates all expressions in offsets (property or array), as well
as the right hand side of assignments before actually fetching the offsets. This
is well explained in this blog post.
https://www.npopov.com/2017/04/14/PHP-7-Virtual-machine.html#writes-and-memory-safety
For ??= we have a bit of a problem in that the rhs must only be evaluated if the
lhs is null or undefined. Thus, we have to first compile the lhs with BP_VAR_IS,
conditionally run the rhs and then re-fetch the lhs with BP_VAR_W to to make
sure the offsets are valid if they have been invalidated.
However, we don't want to just re-evaluate the entire lhs because it may contain
side-effects, as in $array[$x++] ??= 42;. In this case, we don't want to
re-evaluate $x++ because it would result in writing to a different offset than
was previously tested. The same goes for function calls, like
$array[foo()] ??= 42;, where the second call to foo() might result in a
different value. PHP behaves correctly in these cases. This is implemented by
memoizing sub-expressions in the lhs of ??= and reusing them when compiling the
lhs for the second time. This is done for any expression that isn't a variable,
i.e. anything that can (potentially) be written to.
Unfortunately, this also means that function calls are considered writable due
to their return-by-reference semantics, and will thus not be memoized. The
expression foo()['bar'] ??= 42; will invoke foo() twice. Even worse,
foo(bar()) ??= 42; will call both foo() and bar() twice, but
foo(bar() + 1) ??= 42; will only call foo() twice. This is likely not by design,
and was just overlooked in the implementation. The RFC does not specify how
function calls in the lhs of the coalesce assignment behaves. This should
probably be improved in the future.
Now, the problem this commit actually fixes is that ??= may memoize expressions
inside assert() function calls that may not actually execute. This is not only
an issue when using the VAR in the second expression (which would usually also
be skipped) but also when freeing the VAR. For this reason, it is not safe to
memoize assert() sub-expressions.
There are two possible solutions:
1. Don't memoize any sub-expressions of assert(), meaning they will execute
twice.
2. Throw a compile error.
Option 2 is not quite simple, because we can't disallow all memoization inside
assert(), as that would break assertions like assert($array[foo()] ??= 'bar');.
Code like this is highly unlikely (and dubious) but possible. In this case, we
would need to make sure that a memoized value could not be used across the
assert boundary it was created in. The complexity for this is not worthwhile. So
we opt for option 1 and disable memoization immediately inside assert().
Fixes GH-11580
Closes GH-11581
If we bind the class to the runtime slot even if we're not the ones who have
performed early binding we'll miss the redeclaration error in the
ZEND_DECLARE_CLASS_DELAYED handler.
Closes GH-11226
There are more places in zend_hash.c where the resize happened after some values on the HashTable struct were set.
I reordered them all, but writing a test for these would rely on the particular amount of bytes allocated at given points in time.
* PHP-8.1:
Fix GH-10990: mail() throws TypeError after iterating over $additional_headers array by reference
Fix GH-8841: php-cli core dump calling a badly formed function
It's actually not php-cli specific, nor SAPI specific.
We should delay the registration of the function into the function table
until after the compilation was successful, otherwise the function is
mistakingly registered and a NULL dereference will happen when trying to
call it.
I based my test of Nikita's test, so credits to him for the test:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/8933#issuecomment-1259881008
Closes GH-10989.
