On 3/3/26 5:07 PM, Farhan Ali wrote:
>
> On 2/12/2026 12:43 PM, Zhuoying Cai wrote:
>> +static bool is_comp_overlap(SecureIplCompAddrRange *comp_addr_range,
>> + int addr_range_index,
>> + uint64_t start_addr, uint64_t end_addr)
>> +{
>> + /* neither a signed nor an unsigned component can overlap with a signed
>> component */
>> + for (int i = 0; i < addr_range_index; i++) {
>> + if ((comp_addr_range[i].start_addr < end_addr &&
>> + start_addr < comp_addr_range[i].end_addr) &&
>> + comp_addr_range[i].is_signed) {
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>
> Shouldn't we use <= and >= checks? For example if
> comp_addr_range[i].start_addr == end_addr, wouldn't that be an overlap?
> and similar for start_addr?
>
> Thanks
>
> Farhan
>
>
Please correct me if I’m wrong. My understanding is that the component
address ranges are defined as half-open intervals [start_addr,
end_addr), where end_addr is exclusive. If that is the case, then the <
comparisons are correct — for example, [1, 3) and [3, 5) are adjacent
but not overlapping.
