[C++] GetRecordBatchPayload crashes on non-cpu String and List arrays #42198
Assignees
Labels
Component: C++
Critical Fix
Bugfixes for security vulnerabilities, crashes, or invalid data.
Type: bug
Milestone
Comments
zeroshade
added a commit
to zeroshade/arrow
that referenced
this issue
Jun 18, 2024
zeroshade
added a commit
to zeroshade/arrow
that referenced
this issue
Jun 19, 2024
zeroshade
added a commit
to zeroshade/arrow
that referenced
this issue
Jun 25, 2024
zeroshade
added a commit
to zeroshade/arrow
that referenced
this issue
Jun 28, 2024
zeroshade
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 2, 2024
…2199) <!-- Thanks for opening a pull request! If this is your first pull request you can find detailed information on how to contribute here: * [New Contributor's Guide](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/guide/step_by_step/pr_lifecycle.html#reviews-and-merge-of-the-pull-request) * [Contributing Overview](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/overview.html) If this is not a [minor PR](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#Minor-Fixes). Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the [Openness](http://theapacheway.com/open/#:~:text=Openness%20allows%20new%20users%20the,must%20happen%20in%20the%20open.) of the Apache Arrow project. Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format? GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} or MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} In the case of PARQUET issues on JIRA the title also supports: PARQUET-${JIRA_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} --> ### Rationale for this change Ensuring that creating IPC payloads works correctly for non-CPU data by utilizing `CopyBufferSliceToCPU`. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ### What changes are included in this PR? Adding calls to `CopyBufferSliceToCPU` to the Ipc Writer for base binary types and for list types, to avoid calls to `value_offset` in those cases. <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ### Are these changes tested? Yes. Tests are added to cuda_test.cc <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please uncomment the line below and explain which changes are breaking. --> <!-- **This PR includes breaking changes to public APIs.** --> <!-- Please uncomment the line below (and provide explanation) if the changes fix either (a) a security vulnerability, (b) a bug that caused incorrect or invalid data to be produced, or (c) a bug that causes a crash (even when the API contract is upheld). We use this to highlight fixes to issues that may affect users without their knowledge. For this reason, fixing bugs that cause errors don't count, since those are usually obvious. --> <!-- **This PR contains a "Critical Fix".** --> * GitHub Issue: #42198
|
@zeroshade did the merge script fail to merge this? I can't see a milestone associated |
raulcd
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 3, 2024
…2199) <!-- Thanks for opening a pull request! If this is your first pull request you can find detailed information on how to contribute here: * [New Contributor's Guide](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/guide/step_by_step/pr_lifecycle.html#reviews-and-merge-of-the-pull-request) * [Contributing Overview](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/overview.html) If this is not a [minor PR](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#Minor-Fixes). Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the [Openness](http://theapacheway.com/open/#:~:text=Openness%20allows%20new%20users%20the,must%20happen%20in%20the%20open.) of the Apache Arrow project. Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format? GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} or MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} In the case of PARQUET issues on JIRA the title also supports: PARQUET-${JIRA_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} --> ### Rationale for this change Ensuring that creating IPC payloads works correctly for non-CPU data by utilizing `CopyBufferSliceToCPU`. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ### What changes are included in this PR? Adding calls to `CopyBufferSliceToCPU` to the Ipc Writer for base binary types and for list types, to avoid calls to `value_offset` in those cases. <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ### Are these changes tested? Yes. Tests are added to cuda_test.cc <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please uncomment the line below and explain which changes are breaking. --> <!-- **This PR includes breaking changes to public APIs.** --> <!-- Please uncomment the line below (and provide explanation) if the changes fix either (a) a security vulnerability, (b) a bug that caused incorrect or invalid data to be produced, or (c) a bug that causes a crash (even when the API contract is upheld). We use this to highlight fixes to issues that may affect users without their knowledge. For this reason, fixing bugs that cause errors don't count, since those are usually obvious. --> <!-- **This PR contains a "Critical Fix".** --> * GitHub Issue: #42198
zanmato1984
pushed a commit
to zanmato1984/arrow
that referenced
this issue
Jul 9, 2024
…ta (apache#42199) <!-- Thanks for opening a pull request! If this is your first pull request you can find detailed information on how to contribute here: * [New Contributor's Guide](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/guide/step_by_step/pr_lifecycle.html#reviews-and-merge-of-the-pull-request) * [Contributing Overview](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/overview.html) If this is not a [minor PR](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#Minor-Fixes). Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the [Openness](http://theapacheway.com/open/#:~:text=Openness%20allows%20new%20users%20the,must%20happen%20in%20the%20open.) of the Apache Arrow project. Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format? GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} or MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} In the case of PARQUET issues on JIRA the title also supports: PARQUET-${JIRA_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY} --> ### Rationale for this change Ensuring that creating IPC payloads works correctly for non-CPU data by utilizing `CopyBufferSliceToCPU`. <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ### What changes are included in this PR? Adding calls to `CopyBufferSliceToCPU` to the Ipc Writer for base binary types and for list types, to avoid calls to `value_offset` in those cases. <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ### Are these changes tested? Yes. Tests are added to cuda_test.cc <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please uncomment the line below and explain which changes are breaking. --> <!-- **This PR includes breaking changes to public APIs.** --> <!-- Please uncomment the line below (and provide explanation) if the changes fix either (a) a security vulnerability, (b) a bug that caused incorrect or invalid data to be produced, or (c) a bug that causes a crash (even when the API contract is upheld). We use this to highlight fixes to issues that may affect users without their knowledge. For this reason, fixing bugs that cause errors don't count, since those are usually obvious. --> <!-- **This PR contains a "Critical Fix".** --> * GitHub Issue: apache#42198
amoeba
added
the
Critical Fix
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Describe the bug, including details regarding any error messages, version, and platform.
Using
GetRecordBatchPayloadwith non-CPU device buffers should work just fine. Instead it gets tripped up on calls tovalue_offsetwhich of course SegFault with non-CPU data. It should be easy enough to utilizeCopyBufferSliceToCPUin order to efficiently pull the offset values if needed, which shouldn't be expensive for CPU buffers.Component(s)
C++
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: