improve parse_options_header performance#2939
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Improve
parse_options_headerperformance when parsing long unterminated quoted value. fixes #2904In #2614, I split up the giant regex that was previously used into a few smaller parts. However, the
"(?:\\\\|\\"|.)*?"regex I came up with to parse quoted values was still susceptible to backtracking performance issues with strings like'"' + "\\" * 100.This reduces the complexity of the regex even further. A regex is used to match token keys and values. If the value starts with a quote, a loop is used to scan characters, skipping escaped slashes and quotes, until a closing quote is found.
Previously, we were matching the invalid value
a="c:\\"asc:\. I couldn't figure out a good reason for this, it seems like it was discussed in #1628 as a behavior in some old browsers which didn't happen anymore. Perhaps it just happened to work with the first refactor, and I left it in? If it does come up, the loop can be modified to handle it if there's still a good reason to.