Project

General

Profile

Bug #14591

Files with invalid multi-byte characters will cause Find::find() to raise EINVAL exception

Added by jeffgrover (Jeff Grover) 5 months ago. Updated 5 months ago.

Status:
Open
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
ruby -v:
ruby 2.5.0p0 (2017-12-25 revision 61468) [x64-mingw32]
[ruby-core:86050]

Description

This can be easily duplicated by the following simple program. I believe this is mostly going to be a problem for users on Windows, where Unicode filenames are common. The example below was the name of a real file in my Recycle Bin:

First, create the problematic file:

c:\Users\me>copy con .����000100000003f582f1e810a56094d18e
File contents
^Z
        1 file(s) copied.

c:\Users\me>dir
 Volume in drive C is Windows
 Volume Serial Number is 64A1-A9E3

 Directory of c:\Users\grove\Documents\Ruby

03/08/2018  07:18 AM    <DIR>          .
03/08/2018  07:18 AM    <DIR>          ..
03/08/2018  07:18 AM                15 .����000100000003f582f1e810a56094d18e

Then, run the following simple Ruby program:

require 'find'

Find.find('.') { |path_name|
    puts path_name
}

You will see the exception raised:

Traceback (most recent call last):
        6: from dirhog.rb:22:in `<main>'
        5: from C:/Ruby25-x64/lib/ruby/2.5.0/find.rb:43:in `find'
        4: from C:/Ruby25-x64/lib/ruby/2.5.0/find.rb:43:in `each'
        3: from C:/Ruby25-x64/lib/ruby/2.5.0/find.rb:48:in `block in find'
        2: from C:/Ruby25-x64/lib/ruby/2.5.0/find.rb:48:in `catch'
        1: from C:/Ruby25-x64/lib/ruby/2.5.0/find.rb:51:in `block (2 levels) in find'
C:/Ruby25-x64/lib/ruby/2.5.0/find.rb:51:in `lstat': Invalid argument @ rb_file_s_lstat - c:\$Recycle.Bin/S-1-5-21-2582874610-2078213686-3622711573-1001/.????000100000003f582f1e810a56094d18e (Errno::EINVAL)

The (work-around) solution I came up with was to add to the list of exceptions already handled by "ignore_errors" in lib/find.rb line 52:

          begin
            s = File.lstat(file)
          rescue Errno::ENOENT, Errno::EACCES, Errno::ENOTDIR, Errno::ELOOP, Errno::ENAMETOOLONG, Errno::EINVAL
            raise unless ignore_error
            next
          end

This seems a reasonable compromise for now, although there is probably a better solution which involves dealing with the invalid characters and translating them to something that can be handled. The reason I am submitting this bug instead of monkey-patching a solution or something is that it is almost impossible to do this externally, you can't catch the exception while in the block of find().

If you want, I can do a GitHub pull request with the change.

As a side note, I'd also like to consider making "ignore_errors=false" the default, instead of true... as it hides problems the programmer might want to know about. If the programmer doesn't care about errors (as in my case) the documentation should clearly emphasize this option.

History

#1 [ruby-core:86059] Updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler) 5 months ago

rescue Errno::ENOENT, Errno::EACCES, Errno::ENOTDIR, Errno::ELOOP, Errno::ENAMETOOLONG, Errno::EINVAL

This seems a reasonable compromise for now

I am not sure.

It requires of ruby hackers to know all these various error types that they
want to rescue. It's ok to be able to be very specific but perhaps it
should not be so ... verbose. That's 6 entries!

I suppose you don't want to "rescue Exception" in general but perhaps
there could be some sub-range such as "rescue Errno" or something. Or
perhaps an even more elegant way.

IMO the above is not very elegant.

I myself also have a very few situations where I rescue multiple exceptions,
in particular related to internet-connection (querying a remote phpbb
webforum ... so many things can go wrong and whenever I ran into a
problem, I added that particular error... but at a later time, I
wondered whether that was a good approach since it takes a LOT of
specific error-catching...)

#2 [ruby-core:86060] Updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler) 5 months ago

If the programmer doesn't care about errors (as in my case) the
documentation should clearly emphasize this option.

Agreed.

Reminds me of my own suggestion to have a variant of require
where we don't have to use begin/rescue (e. g. because of a
similar reason that you mentioned ... "if the programmer does
not care about this or that"; in your case the error, in my
case also if some external smaller add-on is unavailable).

I think matz and the core team are listening; the general error/warning
means of ruby have been suggested to be enhanced by other people in
the past too. I guess there may be some changes eventually sooner or
later towards the path to 3.x, it just takes a little while sometimes.

mjit and optcarrot-tests for ducks, hares and cats probably have higher
priority right now. :)

Also available in: Atom PDF