On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, thank you for looking into it :-)
>
> Am 23.7.2014 um 00:23 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>:
> > hi Bob,
> >
> > I still think that current array usage in constant expressions is not
> > consistent and dangerous. It "smells" to me, and I think it may bring
> > troubles in the future even if the existing known bugs are fixed.
> >
> > I see few issues:
> >
> > 1) It is possible to declare array class constants however they can't be
> > used. I can't remember why array in constants were prohibited before and
> > what problems they brought. The following script works without any
> warnings.
> >
> > <?php
> > class Foo {
> > const BAR = [1];
> > }
> > ?>
>
> Because it's actually valid. You don't use it in non-static scalar context.
>
> > 2) In some cases array constants may be used, but not in the others.
> >
> > <?php
> > class Foo {
> > const BAR = [0];
> > static $a = Foo::BAR; // constant array usage
> > }
> > var_dump(Foo::$a); // prints array
> > var_dump(Foo::BAR); // emits fatal error
> > ?>
>
> They can only be used in static scalar contexts.
>
> I wanted to introduce constants to be used and dereferenced also at
> run-time, but that requires a RFC.
> If anyone would allow me to introduce that still now (it'd be a relatively
> simple patch), I'll happily do it.
> The issue just was that I was a bit late to create a RFC (beta freeze
> etc...)
>
> > 3) The fact that constants are allowed in compile time and even stored,
> but
> > can't be used confuses me as well as the error message "PHP Fatal error:
> > Arrays are not allowed in constants at run-time".
>
> See above...
>
Yeah all the issues above (1-3) are actually a single inconsistency.
You may find it logical, but I think differently.
>
> > 4) Zend/tests/constant_expressions_arrays.phpt crashes whit
> > opcache.protect_memory=1 (that indicates petential SHM memory corruption)
> >
> > This may be fixed with the following patch:
> >
> > diff --git a/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h b/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h
> > index 144930e..f1aab9a 100644
> > --- a/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h
> > +++ b/Zend/zend_vm_execute.h
> > @@ -4323,6 +4323,16 @@ static int ZEND_FASTCALL
> > ZEND_DECLARE_CONST_SPEC_CONST_CONST_HANDLER(ZEND_OPCOD
> > c.value = *tmp_ptr;
> > } else {
> > INIT_PZVAL_COPY(&c.value, val);
> > + if (Z_TYPE(c.value) == IS_ARRAY) {
> > + HashTable *ht;
> > +
> > + ALLOC_HASHTABLE(ht);
> > + zend_hash_init(ht,
> > zend_hash_num_elements(Z_ARRVAL(c.value)), NULL, ZVAL_PTR_DTOR, 0);
> > + zend_hash_copy(ht, Z_ARRVAL(c.value),
> > (copy_ctor_func_t) zval_deep_copy, NULL, sizeof(zval *));
> > + Z_ARRVAL(c.value) = ht;
> > + } else {
> > + zval_copy_ctor(&c.value);
> > + }
> > zval_copy_ctor(&c.value);
> > }
> > c.flags = CONST_CS; /* non persistent, case sensetive */
>
> I assume you wanted to patch zend_vm_def.h, not zend_vm_execute.h.
>
Yes. Of course.
> If you can fix it, please apply the patch, I'm not so deep into opcache to
> take responsibility for that one.
>
OK. This part of the patch must be safe. I'll apply it later.
>
> > 5) Circular constant references crash (found by Nikita)
> >
> > <?php
> > class A {
> > const FOO = [self::BAR];
> > const BAR = [self::FOO];
> > }
> > var_dump(A::FOO); // crashes because of infinity recursion
> > ?>
>
> That isn't a specific problems with arrays:
>
> <?php
> class test {
> const BAR = 0 + self::FOO;
> const FOO = 0 + self::BAR;
> }
> var_dump(test::BAR);
>
> just segfaults too because of the exact same issue
>
Oh... This is really bad.
It means we have a general AST evaluation problem.
It must be fixed before 5.6 release.
I'll try to make another attempt in the evening today or tomorrow.
Thanks. Dmitry.
>
> > I didn't find any useful way to fix it. One of the ideas with following
> > hack seemed to work, but it breaks another test
> > (Zend/tests/constant_expressions_classes.phpt)
> >
> > diff --git a/Zend/zend_ast.c b/Zend/zend_ast.c
> > index 12f9405..8798737 100644
> > --- a/Zend/zend_ast.c
> > +++ b/Zend/zend_ast.c
> > @@ -251,10 +251,22 @@ ZEND_API void zend_ast_evaluate(zval *result,
> > zend_ast *ast, zend_class_entry *s
> > zval_dtor(&op2);
> > break;
> > case ZEND_CONST:
> > - *result = *ast->u.val;
> > - zval_copy_ctor(result);
> > - if (IS_CONSTANT_TYPE(Z_TYPE_P(result))) {
> > - zval_update_constant_ex(&result, 1, scope
> > TSRMLS_CC);
> > + if (EG(in_execution) && EG(opline_ptr) &&
> > *EG(opline_ptr) &&
> > + ((*EG(opline_ptr))->opcode == ZEND_RECV_INIT
> ||
> > + (*EG(opline_ptr))->opcode ==
> > ZEND_DECLARE_CONST)) {
> > + *result = *ast->u.val;
> > + zval_copy_ctor(result);
> > + if (IS_CONSTANT_TYPE(Z_TYPE_P(result))) {
> > + zval_update_constant_ex(&result,
> 1,
> > scope TSRMLS_CC);
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + if
> (IS_CONSTANT_TYPE(Z_TYPE_P(ast->u.val)))
> > {
> > +
> > zval_update_constant_ex(&ast->u.val, 1, scope TSRMLS_CC);
> > + *result = *ast->u.val;
> > + } else {
> > + *result = *ast->u.val;
> > + zval_copy_ctor(result);
> > + }
> > }
> > break;
> > case ZEND_BOOL_AND:
> >
> > I spent few hours trying to find a solution, but failed. May be my ideas
> > could lead you to something...
> >
> > Otherwise, I would recommend to remove this feature from PHP-5.6.
> >
> > Thanks. Dmitry.
>
> So, as we see, it's not especially because of arrays, but everytime the
> two self-referencing constants are inside an expression of each other,
> it'll fail.
>
> I'm just wondering if we can't somehow deeply copy the asts for opcache
> between compile time and run time in pass_two() (If I'm not wrong
> pass_two() has some hook for zend extensions?)
>
> Then we can fix the ast and don't have to take care of opcache at run time
> (= when the (dynamic) asts will be evaluated). It'd maybe even be a bit
> faster as it then doesn't have to copy so much at run-time.
>
> Bob
>
> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Bob,
> >>
> >> Now I think it's not fixable by design :(
> >>
> >> I'll try to think about it later today.
> >> Could you please collect all related issues.
> >>
> >> Thanks. Dmitry.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 2.7.2014 um 15:43 schrieb Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com>:
> >>>
> >>> I don't have good ideas out of the box and I probably won't be able to
> >>> look into this before next week.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hey, I still have no real idea how to solve it without breaking
> opcache.
> >>>
> >>> This one seems to be considered like a blocking bug for 5.6.
> >>>
> >>> Could you please try to fix this in a sane manner?
> >>>
> >>> Bob
>
