Bug 74779 - Segmentation fault when using a complex path for clip and stroke
Summary: Segmentation fault when using a complex path for clip and stroke
Alias: None
Product: cairo
Classification: Unclassified
Component: image backend (show other bugs)
Version: 1.12.16
Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) Linux (All)
: medium critical
Assignee: Chris Wilson
QA Contact: cairo-bugs mailing list
: 89488 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: cairo-1.14
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2014-02-10 09:50 UTC by Jussi Lahdenniemi
Modified: 2016-01-26 08:22 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:

Code to reproduce the crash (746 bytes, text/plain)
2014-02-10 09:50 UTC, Jussi Lahdenniemi
Patch to work around the problem (608 bytes, patch)
2014-03-12 09:49 UTC, Jussi Lahdenniemi
Details | Splinter Review
Live data test case for reproducing the bug (268.43 KB, application/x-xz)
2014-03-12 09:49 UTC, Jussi Lahdenniemi
Reduced version of live test case for reproducing the bug (1.14 KB, text/plain)
2014-03-12 15:28 UTC, Uli Schlachter
quick hack (3.77 KB, patch)
2014-08-06 17:32 UTC, Massimo
Details | Splinter Review
patch to instrument cairo-polygon-intersect.c (882 bytes, patch)
2014-08-08 10:49 UTC, Massimo
Details | Splinter Review
patch to add an assert to verify an assumption (892 bytes, patch)
2014-08-08 10:55 UTC, Massimo
Details | Splinter Review
proposed patch (4.94 KB, patch)
2014-09-01 06:06 UTC, Massimo
Details | Splinter Review
proposed patch (12.55 KB, patch)
2014-09-17 06:22 UTC, Massimo
Details | Splinter Review
patchset (15.63 KB, patch)
2014-09-23 10:45 UTC, Massimo
Details | Splinter Review

Description Jussi Lahdenniemi 2014-02-10 09:50:39 UTC
Created attachment 93749 [details]
Code to reproduce the crash

When a sufficiently complex path, consisting of multiple subpaths, is used both for clip and for stroke, cairo sometimes crashes in a segmentation fault. The crash seems to happen in the function active_edges, where in the innermost do...while loop the "right" variable for some reason gets a NULL value:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
active_edges (polygon=0x7fffffffd440, top=32768, left=0x6b9a80) at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-polygon-intersect.c:1235
1235    /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-polygon-intersect.c: No such file or directory.
(gdb) where
#0  active_edges (polygon=0x7fffffffd440, top=32768, left=0x6b9a80) at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-polygon-intersect.c:1235
#1  intersection_sweep (polygon=0x7fffffffd440, num_events=<optimized out>, start_events=<optimized out>)
    at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-polygon-intersect.c:1271
#2  _cairo_polygon_intersect (a=a@entry=0x7fffffffd440, winding_a=winding_a@entry=0, b=b@entry=0x7fffffffcff0, winding_b=<optimized out>)
    at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-polygon-intersect.c:1466
#3  0x00007ffff7b3812a in clip_and_composite_polygon (compositor=compositor@entry=0x7ffff7dd8000 <spans.11982>, extents=extents@entry=0x7fffffffd880,
    polygon=polygon@entry=0x7fffffffd440, fill_rule=CAIRO_FILL_RULE_WINDING, antialias=antialias@entry=CAIRO_ANTIALIAS_DEFAULT)
    at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-spans-compositor.c:937
#4  0x00007ffff7b38c77 in _cairo_spans_compositor_stroke (_compositor=0x7ffff7dd8000 <spans.11982>, extents=0x7fffffffd880, path=<optimized out>, style=0x7fffffffdc70,
    ctm=0x604c70, ctm_inverse=0x604ca0, tolerance=0,10000000000000001, antialias=CAIRO_ANTIALIAS_DEFAULT)
    at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-spans-compositor.c:1074
#5  0x00007ffff7af7974 in _cairo_compositor_stroke (compositor=0x7ffff7dd8000 <spans.11982>, surface=0x6049c0, op=CAIRO_OPERATOR_OVER, source=0x7fffffffdca0,
    path=0x604eb8, style=0x7fffffffdc70, ctm=0x604c70, ctm_inverse=ctm_inverse@entry=0x604ca0, tolerance=0,10000000000000001,
    antialias=antialias@entry=CAIRO_ANTIALIAS_DEFAULT, clip=clip@entry=0x6089f0) at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-compositor.c:157
#6  0x00007ffff7b07953 in _cairo_image_surface_stroke (abstract_surface=<optimized out>, op=<optimized out>, source=<optimized out>, path=<optimized out>,
    style=<optimized out>, ctm=<optimized out>, ctm_inverse=0x604ca0, tolerance=<optimized out>, antialias=CAIRO_ANTIALIAS_DEFAULT, clip=0x6089f0)
    at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-image-surface.c:961
#7  0x00007ffff7b3bd42 in _cairo_surface_stroke (surface=0x6049c0, op=CAIRO_OPERATOR_OVER, source=0x7fffffffdca0, path=0x604eb8, stroke_style=0x7fffffffdc70,
    ctm=0x604c70, ctm_inverse=0x604ca0, tolerance=0,10000000000000001, antialias=CAIRO_ANTIALIAS_DEFAULT, clip=0x6089f0)
    at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-surface.c:2210
#8  0x00007ffff7aff05f in _cairo_gstate_stroke (gstate=0x604b80, path=path@entry=0x604eb8) at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-gstate.c:1185
#9  0x00007ffff7af9079 in _cairo_default_context_stroke (abstract_cr=0x604b50) at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo-default-context.c:1013
#10 0x00007ffff7af2875 in INT_cairo_stroke (cr=0x604b50) at /build/buildd/cairo-1.12.16/src/cairo.c:2146
#11 0x0000000000400b8f in main () at bug.c:28

Can be reproduced reliably with the attached code.
Comment 1 Jussi Lahdenniemi 2014-03-12 09:47:57 UTC
Had to get this working (at least to some extent), so I did a bit of research on the problem. The root cause seems to be that in certain circumstances the edges in the sweep list end up in a wrong order. When after that new edges are inserted they may end up at _very_ wrong positions, and before long the whole list is all messed up.

Unfortunately, I did not have the time to find a real fix, but I worked around the problem by adding some NULL checks to the active_edges function (see the attached workaround patch), which at least makes the SIGSEGV disappear. The result is probably not pixel perfect, as the edges are still in the wrong order, but that's not that big an issue for me.

I am also attaching another test case, reproduced from real live data this time, which demonstrates hopefully a little less pathological case for examination.
Comment 2 Jussi Lahdenniemi 2014-03-12 09:49:02 UTC
Created attachment 95645 [details] [review]
Patch to work around the problem
Comment 3 Jussi Lahdenniemi 2014-03-12 09:49:57 UTC
Created attachment 95646 [details]
Live data test case for reproducing the bug
Comment 4 Uli Schlachter 2014-03-12 15:28:23 UTC
Created attachment 95665 [details]
Reduced version of live test case for reproducing the bug

(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 95646 [details]
> Live data test case for reproducing the bug

I let creduce[0] play with this for a while (The interesting measure was "crashes accessing address 0x30"). The result is the attached, reduced test case which is a lot smaller.

[0]: http://embed.cs.utah.edu/creduce/
Comment 5 Massimo 2014-08-06 17:32:50 UTC
Created attachment 104163 [details] [review]
quick hack

This is a patch that fixes the crashes in the three attached test cases on
my machine, it is meant to show what appears to me as the problem, the solution
probably should be decided by someone familiar with the code.

1) not returning the pointer difference as a signed int fixes the 'creduced'
2) computing the IMHO correctly rounded quotient fixes the #93749 attachment
and inserting the new edge sorted at current_y+1 fixes the live data test.
This last fix could possibly introduce the same problem for the horizontally
specular case, that is with an edge having an intersection at the same y as
its starting end-point, but at a greater x, in that case the intersection event
would be added, that is the edge 'contains' the intersection, and when the
event is processed the edges would be correctly swapped preserving the order
in the active list.

Comment 6 Massimo 2014-08-08 10:49:47 UTC
Created attachment 104273 [details] [review]
patch to instrument cairo-polygon-intersect.c

Adding comments to describe the easy parts of this bug:

instrumenting src/cairo-polygon-intersect.c as in the attached patch
and executing the 'creduced' test case prints on the console
lines like:

> 0x00000001a3ef00 0x00000001a3fae0 intptr_t diff: fffffffffffff420    -3040 int diff: 55555458   1431655512 a < b -1
> 0x00000001a3f9f0 0x00000001a3f950 intptr_t diff: 00000000000000a0      160 int diff: aaaaaab8  -1431655752 a < b +1
> 0x00000001a3f590 0x00000001a3f9f0 intptr_t diff: fffffffffffffba0    -1120 int diff: 555554f8   1431655672 a < b -1
> 0x00000001a3f0e0 0x00000001a3f040 intptr_t diff: 00000000000000a0      160 int diff: aaaaaab8  -1431655752 a < b +1
> 0x00000001a3ed70 0x00000001a3ee10 intptr_t diff: ffffffffffffff60     -160 int diff: 55555548   1431655752 a < b -1
> 0x00000001a3f040 0x00000001a3f0e0 intptr_t diff: ffffffffffffff60     -160 int diff: 55555548   1431655752 a < b -1
> 0x00000001a3f590 0x00000001a3f9f0 intptr_t diff: fffffffffffffba0    -1120 int diff: 555554f8   1431655672 a < b -1
> 0x00000001a3f9f0 0x00000001a3f950 intptr_t diff: 00000000000000a0      160 int diff: aaaaaab8  -1431655752 a < b +1
> 0x00000001a3f040 0x00000001a3f0e0 intptr_t diff: ffffffffffffff60     -160 int diff: 55555548   1431655752 a < b -1
> 0x00000001a3ed70 0x00000001a3ee10 intptr_t diff: ffffffffffffff60     -160 int diff: 55555548   1431655752 a < b -1
> 0x00000001a3f950 0x00000001a3f9f0 intptr_t diff: ffffffffffffff60     -160 int diff: 55555548   1431655752 a < b -1
> 0x007fff5ea37418 0x007fff5ea37518 intptr_t diff: ffffffffffffff00     -256 int diff: 55555540   1431655744 a < b -1
> 0x007fff5ea37678 0x007fff5ea37458 intptr_t diff: 0000000000000220      544 int diff: aaaaaad8  -1431655720 a < b +1
> 0x007fff5ea37658 0x007fff5ea373d8 intptr_t diff: 0000000000000280      640 int diff: aaaaaae0  -1431655712 a < b +1


this shows that the last statement  in 'cairo_bo_event_compare'
is executed and on 64 bit platforms it invokes undefined behaviour
(the compiler assumes that it must not happen and is entitled to
emit whatever)

For the record I'm using gcc from fc20:

gcc (GCC) 4.8.3 20140624 (Red Hat 4.8.3-1)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
Comment 7 Massimo 2014-08-08 10:55:42 UTC
Created attachment 104274 [details] [review]
patch to add an assert to verify an assumption

Judging from the comment and the code at (where 'exactness' is used):


it seems you want to compute the ordinate of an intersection rounded
toward -oo with the unused remainder non-negative.

adding an assert to verify this happens (as in the attached patch)

  num = q * den + r
   -> r = num - q * den
   -> r >= 0
   -> num >= q * den

it is evident from its failure when running the 'creduced' test case

intersect_lines: Assertion `(!((det64x32_128 (a_det, dx1, b_det, dx2)) < (((int128_t) (qr.quo) * (den_det)))))' failed.

that when the computed remainder is not zero not always a > b

In case comments are old and misleading and you want to round to the nearest
integer I suspect the code computing the ordinate is anyway wrong:

for example when


den64x32 = 16
den_det = -5

16 / -5 = -3.2

qr initially is {-3, 1} because 16 == -3 * -5 + 1

but den_det and qr.rem have different signs so qr.rem is
negated and doubled -> qr = { -3, -2 }

because now qr.rem >= den_det (-2 >= -5) qr.quo is decremented
to -4, which is not the nearest integer approximating -3.2
Comment 8 Massimo 2014-08-08 15:51:12 UTC
Re the problem caused by using the difference between ptrs:

initially I thought that the problem was that the difference between
raw pointers to stack/heap allocated objects could exceed
2^31 * sizeof(cairo_bo_event_t) and so not representable as an int.

But reading better the code the problem is that you're computing the
difference between addresses of objects of different types
(cairo_bo_start_event_t and cairo_bo_queue_event_t) using pointers to
another type (cairo_bo_event_t).

When the raw difference is not divisible by 'sizeof(cairo_bo_event_t)'
the result is random.

In C, technically, relational operations between pointers are defined
only for pointers to objects from the same array etc. (in C++ it is
possible to use std::less that hides the magic necessary to make it
well defined).
To be on the safe side you'd better cast the pointers to uintptr_t and
return -1 or 0 or 1 for <, ==, >.
Comment 9 Massimo 2014-09-01 06:06:48 UTC
Created attachment 105530 [details] [review]
proposed patch

This patch superesedes the previous.

The problem seems to be that flooring (or rounding to the nearest)
intersections and processing START events after INTERSECTION events
causes an inversion in the active edge list, that is it happens
that introducing new edges at the same y of a floored intersection
finds two or more edges already swapped and
event_queue_insert_if_intersect_below_current_y enqueues intersections
events above the current sweep_line position because slope_compare is
incorrectly assuming left to be the left edge and right the right one.

The patched implementation of the sweep_line instead considers edges
as translated upward and shrinked by 1 and 2 epsilon.

It means that all edge lower vertices are considered positioned at
an y = nominal y - 2 * epsilon, the upper points at y - epsilon.

It follows that events having the same y are processed in the order:

STOP prior than START prior than INTERSECTION (floored to integer).

This way START and STOP events should find the active-edges
list correctly sorted, and sorting the new edges also using
slope_compare should not miss intersection, nor move the sweep line
back and forth.

Here it fixes the 3 test cases attached to this report and the 2 scripts
attached to bug 59098, plus I can open in evince the pdf mentioned in


with the side panel (thumb pages) visible.
Comment 10 Massimo 2014-09-02 10:58:41 UTC
Two links to bug reports with attached pdf files that crash
evince and are rendered after patching cairo with the patch 
in my previous comment:



Comment 11 Massimo 2014-09-04 04:45:52 UTC
It is also possible to round intersections to their nearest integer,
it is a little more elaborate:

it is necessary to

properly round the integer quotient to the nearest integer,         
change the cairo_bo_intersect_ordinate 'exactness' member to hold   
say {EXCESS, EXACT, DEFECT } values, and split INTERSECTION events  
in INTERSECTION_ABOVE and INTERSECTION_BELOW events which should    
be processed


with that approach few image tests that fail with the patch
above do pass.
Comment 12 Massimo 2014-09-17 06:22:39 UTC
Created attachment 106407 [details] [review]
proposed patch

The attached patch achieves the same result (processing events in a
valid order) by including the approximation of the intersection
coordinates in the event->point member.

It is thus easy to adjust the event comparison function to avoid
that intersection events having y coordinate approximated in default
are processed before start events having that same exact y.

To simplify the rounding computation it exploits the fact that in
intersect_lines den_det is always positive, because intersect_lines
is only called after _slope_compare returned > 0 and _slope_compare
is returning the sign of den_det.

And it also simplifies  _cairo_bo_edge_contains_intersect_point because
comparing at top is useless as it is explained in the comment and the
quadratic-time finder mentioned there is only present (but unusable) in
src/cairo-bentley-ottman.c, whereas the comparison at bottom is necessary
when edge.p2.y != edge.bottom, but comparing only the y is sufficient.

On my laptop running:

DISPLAY=:2 make -s test TARGETS=image,xlib,xcb

reports the same number of failures with/without the patch and also
replicating the changes in the patch to

Well the big number of failures in the test suite could hide newly
introduced bugs, so considering the target image.argb32

tests executing intersection_sweep (in src/cairo-polygon-intersect.c) are

bug-bo-ricotz clip-disjoint clip-disjoint-hatching clip-disjoint-quad
clip-stroke-unbounded clip-fill-nz-unbounded clip-fill-eo-unbounded
clip-fill clip-group-shapes-circles clip-operator clip-polygons
clip-stroke clip-twice hatchings random-clip record90-paint-alpha-clip-mask
rotated-clip tighten-bounds trap-clip

of which only trap-clip and clip-operator are failing here, so anyway the
test-suite is exercising and verifying the code modified.
Comment 13 Bryce Harrington 2014-09-22 20:56:31 UTC
Hi Massimo, mind breaking this patch up into some simpler chunks to make reviewing easier?
Comment 14 Massimo 2014-09-23 10:45:40 UTC
Created attachment 106722 [details] [review]

patch split in 4.
Comment 15 Bryce Harrington 2014-10-03 19:39:04 UTC
Thanks Massimo, we'll land this when the tree opens for 1.4.1.
Comment 16 Sebastien Bacher 2015-03-26 15:59:34 UTC
Bryce, is that still on your list?
Comment 18 Bryce Harrington 2015-06-04 22:12:57 UTC
Thanks for splitting the patches up.  The logic is still a bit dense for me to grok but based on the thoroughness of the testing and the pervasiveness of the issue I've taken the liberty of landing it at this point, with hope this will give us additional time for testing it before we get to the 1.14.4 release.  

Massimo, thanks again for investigating this bug!

To ssh://git.cairographics.org/git/cairo
   b9ada81..1ed318c  master -> master
Comment 19 Jason Crain 2015-08-24 07:47:41 UTC
*** Bug 89488 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20 Olli Attila 2016-01-26 08:22:40 UTC
Bug 59098 is a duplicate of this?

Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.