2 ms·

They would require rendering in a specific program This program is an image editor essentially opening 700 tabs, one for each frame. It's not a "bomb" when

They would require *rendering* in a specific program This program is an image editor essentially opening 700 tabs, one for each frame. It's not a "bomb" when you intentionally blow it up...

nieve 5y ago
Several programs including Firefox Nightly have been reported to blow up, so no it's not limited to a "specific program".
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  If you're actually following it proves exactly what I'm saying, the gif has nothing to do with it, Firefox isn't blowing up opening that gif, it's hitting whatever framework leak exists. This is like saying "DOCX bluescreens Windows" (which implies something that could possibly be exploited in some pretty scary ways) when in reality Word just happens to make some syscall that bluescreens Windows no matter who calls it
  - jiofih 5y ago
    I don’t know why you made up your mind on this without having any details. The person reporting is the author of a graphics editor, he damn well knows the difference between a bug in his own editor and system frameworks. The issue seems to be with opening the GIF via default system frameworks, not anything special the editor is doing. Chances are it will affect any other programs using the same frameworks, maybe even GIF viewers.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      Dude there's literally a screenshot of the dissected gif right in the forum thread.
  - Arnavion 5y ago
    "DOCX bluescreens Windows" is exactly how your hypothetical scenario would be described. "Bush hid the facts" is described as a Notepad bug, even though it's a bug in a specific WinAPI function used by Notepad and thus would also affect other programs that used that function. It was discovered on Notepad, it became popular as a bug of Notepad, and so it's considered a Notepad bug.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      Yes it's a Notepad bug! Exactly! The editor! Not a TXT bug! Thank you for making my point! It'd be kind of crazy if there was something inherent to the TXT that when opened in any program made that bug occur! But the issue was with Notepad! Much more believable! Windows bug would be acceptable too, or WinAPI bug :) This isn't that complicated, I don't mind teaching y'all how to not write non-clickbait headlines
kelnos 5y ago
730 frames of a 400x240 pixel image at 8 bits per pixel (which is all GIF allows) is 70MB (plus 768 bytes for the palette). We should be able to load each frame of the GIF many, many times before we reach even 1GB of RAM, let alone 35GB. The x86 version of the same editor can open this GIF in the same way with reasonable memory consumption. This is clearly an issue with either the image editor, or as seems to be the case (based on investigation in the Twitter thread) an issue with a macOS system framework the editor uses. Not sure why you feel the need to be so belligerent on this. All the information we need to identify this as a problem specific to the M1 version of macOS is in the first tweet, with more details that give us exact numbers in a follow-up.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  I don't like the title, it's as simple as that. No one said there isn't a bug, but not about the gif, it's about editing the gif. This title is like saying a guy killed 10 people with a pen, and it turns out he signed an order for their execution. It's a bug, but nowhere near what the title implies. - Edit: No it's not about the gif, just like it's not about the pen even if it was involved. The editor completely changes things and makes the gif the least interesting part.
  - nemetroid 5y ago
    > but not about the gif, it's about editing the gif. That sounds like it's about the gif. I don't see the word "viewing" in the title.
  - klibertp 5y ago
    Uh-oh, this is sooo important, some title on the Internet is wrong! If I read it correctly, the same app, compiled from the same code, for the same OS, but different CPU architectures, exhibits wildly different memory consumption for the same task. That's what's interesting here, at least to me, but you chose to nitpick on the title instead, just because - from what you write - it offended you somehow by not including the word "editing" at the beginning. I mean, sure, go on, have fun, but at least don't expect your posts not be downvoted.

They would require *rendering* in a specific program This program is an image editor essentially opening 700 tabs, one for each frame. It's not a "bomb" when

They would require *rendering* in a specific program This program is an image editor essentially opening 700 tabs, one for each frame. It's not a "bomb" when you intentionally blow it up...

nieve 5y ago

Several programs including Firefox Nightly have been reported to blow up, so no it's not limited to a "specific program".

BoorishBears 5y ago
If you're actually following it proves exactly what I'm saying, the gif has nothing to do with it, Firefox isn't blowing up opening that gif, it's hitting whatever framework leak exists. This is like saying "DOCX bluescreens Windows" (which implies something that could possibly be exploited in some pretty scary ways) when in reality Word just happens to make some syscall that bluescreens Windows no matter who calls it
- jiofih 5y ago
  I don’t know why you made up your mind on this without having any details. The person reporting is the author of a graphics editor, he damn well knows the difference between a bug in his own editor and system frameworks. The issue seems to be with opening the GIF via default system frameworks, not anything special the editor is doing. Chances are it will affect any other programs using the same frameworks, maybe even GIF viewers.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    Dude there's literally a screenshot of the dissected gif right in the forum thread.
- Arnavion 5y ago
  "DOCX bluescreens Windows" is exactly how your hypothetical scenario would be described. "Bush hid the facts" is described as a Notepad bug, even though it's a bug in a specific WinAPI function used by Notepad and thus would also affect other programs that used that function. It was discovered on Notepad, it became popular as a bug of Notepad, and so it's considered a Notepad bug.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    Yes it's a Notepad bug! Exactly! The editor! Not a TXT bug! Thank you for making my point! It'd be kind of crazy if there was something inherent to the TXT that when opened in any program made that bug occur! But the issue was with Notepad! Much more believable! Windows bug would be acceptable too, or WinAPI bug :) This isn't that complicated, I don't mind teaching y'all how to not write non-clickbait headlines

kelnos 5y ago

730 frames of a 400x240 pixel image at 8 bits per pixel (which is all GIF allows) is 70MB (plus 768 bytes for the palette). We should be able to load each frame of the GIF many, many times before we reach even 1GB of RAM, let alone 35GB. The x86 version of the same editor can open this GIF in the same way with reasonable memory consumption. This is clearly an issue with either the image editor, or as seems to be the case (based on investigation in the Twitter thread) an issue with a macOS system framework the editor uses. Not sure why you feel the need to be so belligerent on this. All the information we need to identify this as a problem specific to the M1 version of macOS is in the first tweet, with more details that give us exact numbers in a follow-up.

BoorishBears 5y ago
I don't like the title, it's as simple as that. No one said there isn't a bug, but not about the gif, it's about editing the gif. This title is like saying a guy killed 10 people with a pen, and it turns out he signed an order for their execution. It's a bug, but nowhere near what the title implies. - Edit: No it's not about the gif, just like it's not about the pen even if it was involved. The editor completely changes things and makes the gif the least interesting part.
- nemetroid 5y ago
  > but not about the gif, it's about editing the gif. That sounds like it's about the gif. I don't see the word "viewing" in the title.
- klibertp 5y ago
  Uh-oh, this is sooo important, some title on the Internet is wrong! If I read it correctly, the same app, compiled from the same code, for the same OS, but different CPU architectures, exhibits wildly different memory consumption for the same task. That's what's interesting here, at least to me, but you chose to nitpick on the title instead, just because - from what you write - it offended you somehow by not including the word "editing" at the beginning. I mean, sure, go on, have fun, but at least don't expect your posts not be downvoted.