[ruby-core:125237] [Ruby Bug#21992] Defining BasicObject#initialize causes segmentation fault
Issue #21992 has been reported by petercooper (Peter Cooper). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21992: Defining BasicObject#initialize causes segmentation fault https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21992 * Author: petercooper (Peter Cooper) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 4.0.2 * Backport: 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN, 4.0: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Simplest reproduction: ``` ruby class BasicObject def initialize end end ``` In Ruby HEAD, 4.0.2, 3.4.7, and 3.3.11 on macOS, this leads to an immediate segmentation fault. I also got this on Ruby 3.4.1 on Linux. What I would expect, a warning similar to that raised if you do the same on `Object`. I couldn't find a previous mention of this. It's not something you would ever write yourself, but I guess it could arise during metaprogramming or dynamic code generation with the right (wrong) constant name in play. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21992 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). Backport changed from 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN, 4.0: UNKNOWN to 3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED, 4.0: REQUIRED petercooper (Peter Cooper) wrote:
In Ruby HEAD, 4.0.2, 3.4.7, and 3.3.11 on macOS, this leads to an immediate segmentation fault. I also got this on Ruby 3.4.1 on Linux.
It looks like since 3.2 (commit:9c5e3671ebd9c07c178ca5dac08ad15ad1eae411).
What I would expect, a warning similar to that raised if you do the same on `Object`.
`BasicObject#initialize` is not defined, so "redefining" may be questionable. Rather it might to be OK to prohibit the definition of `BasicObject#initialize`, I think. ---------------------------------------- Bug #21992: Defining BasicObject#initialize causes segmentation fault https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21992#change-116978 * Author: petercooper (Peter Cooper) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 4.0.2 * Backport: 3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED, 4.0: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- Simplest reproduction: ``` ruby class BasicObject def initialize end end ``` In Ruby HEAD, 4.0.2, 3.4.7, and 3.3.11 on macOS, this leads to an immediate segmentation fault. I also got this on Ruby 3.4.1 on Linux. What I would expect, a warning similar to that raised if you do the same on `Object`. I couldn't find a previous mention of this. It's not something you would ever write yourself, but I guess it could arise during metaprogramming or dynamic code generation with the right (wrong) constant name in play. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21992 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) wrote in #note-1:
`BasicObject#initialize` is not defined, so "redefining" may be questionable.
It seems it is defined: ``` $ ruby -ve 'p Class.new.instance_method :initialize' ruby 3.4.9 (2026-03-11 revision 76cca827ab) +PRISM [x86_64-linux] #<UnboundMethod: BasicObject#initialize()> ``` ---------------------------------------- Bug #21992: Defining BasicObject#initialize causes segmentation fault https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21992#change-116979 * Author: petercooper (Peter Cooper) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 4.0.2 * Backport: 3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED, 4.0: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- Simplest reproduction: ``` ruby class BasicObject def initialize end end ``` In Ruby HEAD, 4.0.2, 3.4.7, and 3.3.11 on macOS, this leads to an immediate segmentation fault. I also got this on Ruby 3.4.1 on Linux. What I would expect, a warning similar to that raised if you do the same on `Object`. I couldn't find a previous mention of this. It's not something you would ever write yourself, but I guess it could arise during metaprogramming or dynamic code generation with the right (wrong) constant name in play. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21992 has been updated by byroot (Jean Boussier). The fix is pretty trivial: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/16725 Not the first time we fail to handle the fact that `RClass.superclass` may be `Qnil`, e.g. [Bug #21694] ---------------------------------------- Bug #21992: Defining BasicObject#initialize causes segmentation fault https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21992#change-116980 * Author: petercooper (Peter Cooper) * Status: Open * ruby -v: 4.0.2 * Backport: 3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED, 4.0: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- Simplest reproduction: ``` ruby class BasicObject def initialize end end ``` In Ruby HEAD, 4.0.2, 3.4.7, and 3.3.11 on macOS, this leads to an immediate segmentation fault. I also got this on Ruby 3.4.1 on Linux. What I would expect, a warning similar to that raised if you do the same on `Object`. I couldn't find a previous mention of this. It's not something you would ever write yourself, but I guess it could arise during metaprogramming or dynamic code generation with the right (wrong) constant name in play. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21992 has been updated by byroot (Jean Boussier).
3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED, 4.0: REQUIRED
I don't know if this bug actually qualify for 3.3 (and more so 3.2) backport, but in doubt I made the PRs: - 4.0: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/16726 - 3.4: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/16727 - 3.3: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/16728 - 3.2: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/16729 ---------------------------------------- Bug #21992: Defining BasicObject#initialize causes segmentation fault https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21992#change-116984 * Author: petercooper (Peter Cooper) * Status: Closed * ruby -v: 4.0.2 * Backport: 3.2: REQUIRED, 3.3: REQUIRED, 3.4: REQUIRED, 4.0: REQUIRED ---------------------------------------- Simplest reproduction: ``` ruby class BasicObject def initialize end end ``` In Ruby HEAD, 4.0.2, 3.4.7, and 3.3.11 on macOS, this leads to an immediate segmentation fault. I also got this on Ruby 3.4.1 on Linux. What I would expect, a warning similar to that raised if you do the same on `Object`. I couldn't find a previous mention of this. It's not something you would ever write yourself, but I guess it could arise during metaprogramming or dynamic code generation with the right (wrong) constant name in play. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
participants (4)
-
byroot (Jean Boussier) -
Eregon (Benoit Daloze)
-
nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)
-
petercooper (Peter Cooper)