LBP1 Script Blocking Hook #16

2025-12-30T14:40:15Z

Zaprit commented

2025-12-30 14:40:15 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

This PR adds a code patch that will block scripts from loading over P2P in LBP1, patches for lbp2 and 3 will come later

👀 1

FeTetra (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes

2025-12-30 15:50:56 +00:00

FeTetra (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

It looks fine for the moment, I assume this still doesn't work outside of LBP1?

Edit: nvm i clearly can't read

It looks fine for the moment, I assume this still doesn't work outside of LBP1? Edit: nvm i clearly can't read

prx.c

					
				@ -13,6 +13,7 @@

				#include "offsets.h"

Should this be considered a major version change?

Zaprit commented

2025-12-30 18:41:54 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

It looks fine for the moment, I assume this still doesn't work outside of LBP1?

Edit: nvm i clearly can't read

LittleBigPlanet 1

> It looks fine for the moment, I assume this still doesn't work outside of LBP1? > > Edit: nvm i clearly can't read LittleBigPlanet 1

Zaprit (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

2025-12-30 23:41:46 +00:00

prx.c

					
				@ -13,6 +13,7 @@

				#include "offsets.h"

I will do that separately from this PR, as a tagged release. In the future I'd like to avoid changing the release numbers from code, and I'm probably going to do some dumb automation for it in the pipeline.

daggintosh commented

2025-12-31 01:17:12 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

ppc64 assembly, I am terrified yet impressed. From my somewhat limited knowledge of C and 5 seconds of analyzing g3 ppc and cell ppc64 instructions in other projects, this looks fine. ~~Were larger URLs colliding with other segments of memory, requiring that 32 byte cap?~~

ppc64 assembly, I am terrified yet impressed. From my somewhat limited knowledge of C and 5 seconds of analyzing g3 ppc and cell ppc64 instructions in other projects, this looks fine. ~~Were larger URLs colliding with other segments of memory, requiring that 32 byte cap?~~

FeTetra commented

2025-12-31 01:32:25 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Were larger URLs colliding with other segments of memory, requiring that 32 byte cap?

As far as I know this hasn't been an issue anyone has run into before, but we can't go over the size of the URL as it is defined by the game already as it would write out of the bounds of the array. That is unless we also change the size of the char array, which is more likely to be a C++ string object of some kind (possibly the custom MMString type) and would require even more hacking to change the URL size. This isn't really new though and since to my knowledge no server has ever had a URL long enough to surpass 32 characters, it's never really been a concern.

-# for the record i can't tell if this is satire

> Were larger URLs colliding with other segments of memory, requiring that 32 byte cap? As far as I know this hasn't been an issue anyone has run into before, but we can't go over the size of the URL as it is defined by the game already as it would write out of the bounds of the array. That is unless we also change the size of the char array, which is more likely to be a C++ string object of some kind (possibly the custom MMString type) and would require even more hacking to change the URL size. This isn't really new though and since to my knowledge no server has ever had a URL long enough to surpass 32 characters, it's never really been a concern. -# for the record i can't tell if this is satire

Zaprit commented

2025-12-31 01:35:25 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Were larger URLs colliding with other segments of memory, requiring that 32 byte cap?

Yes, if you patch LBP to a larger URL size it breaks online connectivity, hence the limit.

> Were larger URLs colliding with other segments of memory, requiring that 32 byte cap? Yes, if you patch LBP to a larger URL size it breaks online connectivity, hence the limit.

daggintosh commented

2025-12-31 01:41:10 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Made a mistake, forgot how strings worked.

Sign in to join this conversation.

No reviewers

FeTetra