Riking (Kane York)
- riking
- riking
- America/Los_Angeles
- Yes
- No
MC-5232
LowFile: Seargename "RenderItem", Notchname "bce"
Method Signature: a(LEntityItem;IIFFFF)V
At Obfuscated Source File Line 176
At MCP Source File Line 246
Near:
```
GL11.glTranslatef(0.0F, 0.0F, var16 + var17);
if (Block.blocksList[var18.itemID] != null)
{
this.loadTexture("/terrain.png");
}
else
```
Var18 is the item contained in the EntityItem.
There are no bounds-checks on this statement to check if var18.itemID will fit into that array. Even though it seems like this is not crashing the game yet, it's possible that that statement could generate an ArrayIndexOutOfBounds exception in certain cases, like a 4096-block fix.To be honest, I have no clue how this doesn't cause an exception when you drop an item :s
But it's weird, and you should use a better way to determine if the item is a block or not.File: Seargename "RenderItem", Notchname "bce"
Method Signature: a(LEntityItem;IIFFFF)V
At Obfuscated Source File Line 176
At MCP Source File Line 246
Near:
```
GL11.glTranslatef(0.0F, 0.0F, var16 + var17);
if (Block.blocksList[var18.itemID] != null)
{
this.loadTexture("/terrain.png");
}
else
```
Var18 is the item contained in the EntityItem.
There are no bounds-checks on this statement to check if var18.itemID will fit into that array. Even though it seems like this is not crashing the game yet, it's possible that that statement could generate an ArrayIndexOutOfBounds exception in certain cases, like a 4096-block fix.To be honest, I have no clue how this doesn't cause an exception when you drop an item :s
A better way would be to check the item array and do instanceof.
Given two items:
<italic><rarity:blue>Chipped FlameVenom Fang
Sharpness 1
Fire Aspect 1
Unbreaking 5
and combining them in an anvil, the result is SH2/FA2/UB3 at a cost of 30 levels, which downgrades the Unbreaking level.I propose that when high-level enchants (meaning higher than possible normally in survival) are present on an item, and two identical copies of that item are combined in an Anvil, that:
1. The result is identical to the inputs, durability added
2. The cost is reducedOr, a second result is available with the above changes.
Given two items:
<italic><rarity:blue>Chipped FlameVenom Fang
Sharpness 1
Fire Aspect 1
Unbreaking 5
and combining them in an anvil, the result is SH2/FA2/UB3 at a cost of 30 levels, which downgrades the Unbreaking level.
I propose that when high-level enchants (meaning higher than possible normally in survival) are present on an item, and two identical copies of that item are combined in an Anvil, that:
1. The result is identical to the inputs, durability added
2. The cost is reducedOr, a second result is available with the above changes.
Given two items:
<italic><rarity:blue>Chipped FlameVenom Fang
Sharpness 1
Fire Aspect 1
Unbreaking 5
and combining them in an anvil, the result is SH2/FA2/UB3 at a cost of 30 levels, which downgrades the Unbreaking level.
I propose that when high-level enchants (meaning higher than possible normally in survival) are present on an item, and two identical copies of that item are combined in an Anvil, that:
1. The result is identical to the inputs, durability added
2. The cost is reducedOr, a second result is available with the above changes.
Given two items:
<italic><rarity:blue>Chipped FlameVenom Fang | Sharpness 1 | Fire Aspect 1 | Unbreaking 5
and combining them in an anvil, the result is SH2/FA2/UB3 at a cost of 30 levels, which downgrades the Unbreaking level.
I propose that when high-level enchants (meaning higher than possible normally in survival) are present on an item, and two identical copies of that item are combined in an Anvil, that:
1. The result is identical to the inputs, durability added
2. The cost is reducedOr, a second result is available with the above changes.
Given two items:
<italic><rarity:blue>Chipped FlameVenom Fang | Sharpness 1 | Fire Aspect 1 | Unbreaking 5
and combining them in an anvil, the result
is SH2/FA2/UB3 at a cost of 30 levels, which downgrades the Unbreaking level.I propose that when high-level enchants (meaning higher than possible normally in survival) are present on an item, and two identical copies of that item are combined in an Anvil, that:
1. The result is identical to the inputs, durability added
2. The cost is reducedOr, a second result is available with the above changes.
Given two items:
<italic><rarity:blue>Chipped FlameVenom Fang | Sharpness 1 | Fire Aspect 1 | Unbreaking 5
and combining them in an anvil, the result has
SH2/FA2/UB3 | cost: 30 levels
This downgrades the Unbreaking level.
I propose that when high-level enchants (meaning higher than possible normally in survival) are present on an item, and two identical copies of that item are combined in an Anvil, that:
1. The result is identical to the inputs, durability added
2. The cost is reducedOr, a second result is available with the above changes.
Given two items:
<italic><rarity:blue>Chipped FlameVenom Fang | Sharpness 1 | Fire Aspect 1 | Unbreaking 5
and combining them in an anvil, the result has
SH2/FA2/UB3 | cost: 30 levels
This downgrades the Unbreaking
level.I propose that when high-level enchants (meaning higher than possible normally in survival) are present on an item, and two identical copies of that item are combined in an Anvil, that:
1. The result is identical to the inputs, durability added
2. The cost is reducedOr, a second result is available with the above changes.
Given two items:
<italic><rarity:blue>Chipped FlameVenom Fang | Sharpness 1 | Fire Aspect 1 | Unbreaking 5
and combining them in an anvil, the result has
SH2/FA2/UB3 | cost: 30 levels
This downgrades the Unbreaking enchantment.
I propose that when high-level enchants (meaning higher than possible normally in survival) are present on an item, and two identical copies of that item are combined in an Anvil, that:
1. The result is identical to the inputs, durability added
2. The cost is reducedOr, a second result is available with the above changes.
This issue was originally reported on the Craftbukkit Leaky:
https://bukkit.atlassian.net/browse/BUKKIT-2459
The original reporter was MonsieurApple.When more than 128 players are online, the array of players will not be sent in response to an RCON query because of a buffer overflow.
This could be fixed by using an int instead of a byte (which has an upward limit of 128) when looping through the list of players.https://github.com/ProjectAres/SportBukkit/blob/master/CraftBukkit/QueryBufferOverflowFix.patch
The issue was closed as outside the scope of CraftBukkit, as the file in that patch does not decompile properly and therefore is unsuitable for inclusion in the project.
@Mustek - I'm talking about improving the game for custom maps
Gee, I thought I did a good job of searching for dupes. That other issue doesn't say "rcon" or "remote" at all
It appears that this issue has resurfaced in 1.6. I would implore the developers to examine the diff in the sign renderer, as this has been corroberated by multiple server owners - areas with 200+ signs cause FPS drops in 1.6 compared to 1.5 when they were fine.
@Grum That is not an acceptable response.
In the following situation:
An unprivileged client is able to mount a Layer 7 denial of service attack on other players simply by being on a server for a day. Staying on a server for 24 hours is, although uncommon, a perfectly valid action by a player, and should not be arbitrarily prohibited. I highly suggest you come up with a more robust solution than that.
EDIT: This also gives server owners a "<strike>crash command</strike>" "nonstandard kick command" (a pattern Mojang has fixed in the past) - simply copy one of the skin data files to another folder and send it to anyone you don't like. Boom, repeated client <strike>crashes</strike> disconnects.
Oh look, something that isn't "this affects [insert newest version here]".