> This is great, but is this test suite run as part of the package build
and publication process in Ubuntu? If not, how could we arrange to run
the test suite against the Ubuntu build of the package that includes
this patch to ensure that we aren't regressing unaffected users in
providing this update?

The test suite is run as part of the Ubuntu build. The patch doesn't
include the new test cases, but it does include all the old ones, which
should demonstrate that there is no regression. When 24.04 opens for
business and the packages sync, the new tests will run as they are in
11.6.3. You can also see it in my PPA:
https://launchpad.net/~qpdf/+archive/ubuntu/qpdf. In any case, I believe
the fact that test suite is run during the existing builds should be
sufficient to ensure that there is no regression. qpdf also has
meaningful autopkgtests. You can also check the debian build output.
Debian stable proposed updates has 11.3.0 with the same patch.

For manual testing:

Running `qpdf --check 018.pdf` where `018.pdf` is the file attached to
the upstream bug will reproduce the issue. With the current version in
22.04 and 23.04, you will see something like this:

```
WARNING: /tmp/z/018.pdf (xref stream: object 17 1, offset 110340): EOF while 
reading token
WARNING: /tmp/z/018.pdf (xref stream: object 17 1, offset 110830): unexpected 
EOF
WARNING: /tmp/z/018.pdf (xref stream: object 17 1, offset 110830): parse error 
while reading object
WARNING: /tmp/z/018.pdf (xref stream: object 17 1, offset 110830): expected 
endobj
WARNING: /tmp/z/018.pdf: file is damaged
WARNING: /tmp/z/018.pdf (offset 110267): xref not found
WARNING: /tmp/z/018.pdf: Attempting to reconstruct cross-reference table
qpdf: /tmp/z/018.pdf: unable to find trailer dictionary while recovering 
damaged file
```

After the fix, you will see
```
checking /home/ejb/Downloads/018.pdf
PDF Version: 1.7
File is not encrypted
File is not linearized
No syntax or stream encoding errors found; the file may still contain
errors that qpdf cannot detect
```
(obviously with the full paths based on whatever you call the file).

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to qpdf in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2039804

Title:
  SRU request: qpdf: data loss bug affecting versions 11.0.0 through
  11.6.2

Status in Qpdf:
  Fix Released
Status in qpdf package in Ubuntu:
  New
Status in qpdf source package in Lunar:
  New
Status in qpdf source package in Mantic:
  New

Bug description:
  Notes:

  * I am the upstream author and debian maintainer for qpdf.
  * This bug has been fixed in debian unstable and testing with version 11.6.3, 
but because 24.04 is not yet open, it has not synced. This should not block 
fixing 23.04 and 22.04. I have uploaded 11.6.3 to my ppa: 
https://launchpad.net/~qpdf/+archive/ubuntu/qpdf
  * I am attaching debdiffs for lunar and mantic

  Upstream bug https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf/issues/1050 revealed a bug
  in qpdf's lexical layer that would cause qpdf to discard the character
  in a binary string following an octal quoted character with 1 or 2
  digits. The PDF spec allows octal digits to be \d, \dd, or \ddd, and
  allows the first two forms if the next character is other than an
  octal digit. Most PDF writers never use the \d or \dd forms, but some
  do. With default options, qpdf does not parse or alter strings inside
  content streams, so this bug is not likely to affect page content.
  However, binary strings of this sort are common in the document /ID
  and may also appear in metadata for encrypted files. In some cases,
  such as the file in #1050, this bug can cause error, in this case,
  because the discarded character was the string end delimiter. In most
  case, this bug results in silent data loss. The fix is very small and
  locally contained. The upstream fix includes several new test cases,
  but the patch I will include to fix the issue only includes the
  relevant code change.

  I also reported this as a debian bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
  bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1054158

  It was approved as a stable update by debian:
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1054119

  [ Impact ]

  The bug could result in silent corruption of binary strings in PDF
  metadata. It could also result in failure of qpdf to process a valid
  file. Data loss justifies a stable update.

  [ Test Plan ]

  The test file in https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf/issues/1050 can be used
  to prove that the bug exists in versions >= 11.0.0 and <= 11.6.2 and
  that the bug is fixed in 11.6.3.

  The upstream fix includes several additional automated test cases.
  These are not included in the patch, but they are included in the
  upstream commit that fixes the bug:
  https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf/commit/1ecc6bb29e24a4f89470ff91b2682b46e0576ad4

  [ Where problems could occur ]

  This fix has a very low risk of causing a regression. The fix is very
  localized to qpdf's lexical layer and is in a code path that only
  occurs when a 1-digit or 2-digit octal quoted character is terminated
  by other than an octal digit. This is the first bug in qpdf's lexical
  layer in many years. It was introduced by a pull request from a
  reliable and consistent contributor who has made may improvements to
  qpdf's performance. The fix follows the established pattern of how to
  handle instances in which a character triggers a state change and has
  to be reprocessed in the new state.

  qpdf has a rigorous test suite and an extremely good quality record.
  It processes millions of documents daily by many commercial entities.
  My current employer runs millions of pages a day through qpdf.

  [ Other Info ]

  See also

  Upstream bug report: https://github.com/qpdf/qpdf/issues/1050
  Corresponding debian bug report: 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1054158
  Debian stable release approval: 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1054119

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/qpdf/+bug/2039804/+subscriptions


-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
Post to     : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to