The generalised sweep found what 0.3.2's hand-written rows missed. All three are
the documented class -- a run in front of a required literal that never arrives,
so every start position rescans the tail -- and all three are worse than the
0.3.3 findings, because `sanitize`, `neutralize`, `scan_active_content` and the
okf link graph apply NO input cap. `scan_lexicon`/`scan_output` are the only
entry points that do, so there is no ceiling to extrapolate to.
sanitize._HTML_COMMENT_RE `<!--`*100_000 20.1s, exponent 1.96-2.14
active_content.URL_IN_TEXT_RE `<a `+`A`*100_000 12.99s / 14.9s, exponent ~2.0
okf._MD_LINK_RE `[`*100_000 7.1s, exponent 1.99-2.05
Each fix is the one the pattern's own shape allows, not a copied choice:
- The comment stripper drops the regex for `str.find`. Excluding `<` would lose
every comment containing markup; bounding the run would be a carrier bypass
of the exact construct the stripper exists to remove.
- `URL_IN_TEXT_RE` bounds its scheme run to an RFC 3986 scheme (`{0,63}`).
Bounding is safe *here* only because it is a defanger inside a tag already
flagged `active:raw-html`. A lookbehind was measured too and rejected: it
drops `-http://evil.com`, a one-character evasion. Bounded: 0.185s at 1M.
- `_MD_LINK_RE` excludes `[`, matching `active_content.MD_LINK_RE` exactly,
including the nested-label trade already documented there.
`sanitize` claimed "no catastrophic backtracking" in a comment; that claim was
wrong in the same way `output`'s was before 0.3.2, and is corrected in place.
676 tests (+10), coverage 128/128 + 6/6 gaps, sweep clean across 150 patterns.
The okf destination run gets no row: `[^)\s]+` cannot fail, so a row for it
could never go red.
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
73fa1b99ae