Hi, as I brainstormed how prevent possible overflows in memory allocation I
came with heretic idea:
For gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 we expand all multiplication with size_t
type by one that checks for integer overflow and aborts on it. This
would prevent most overflow at cost of breaking some legitima
> Hi, as I brainstormed how prevent possible overflows in memory allocation I
> came with heretic idea:
>
> For gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 we expand all multiplication with size_t
> type by one that checks for integer overflow and aborts on it. This
> would prevent most overflow at cost of breaking s
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 09:41:36PM +0200, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> > Hi, as I brainstormed how prevent possible overflows in memory allocation I
> > came with heretic idea:
> >
> > For gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 we expand all multiplication with size_t
> > type by one that checks for integer overflow
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 09:29:12PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> Hi, as I brainstormed how prevent possible overflows in memory allocation I
> came with heretic idea:
>
> For gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 we expand all multiplication with size_t
> type by one that checks for integer overflow and aborts o
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Or alternatively you could use the Ada language where integer overflow
>> and buffer overflows are built into the language are fully handled by
>> the compiler.
>>
> Yeah, I will suggest my boss in our project that cost $1 000 000 to
> fire all C programmers, hire ada programmer
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 01:50:14AM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 09:29:12PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> > Hi, as I brainstormed how prevent possible overflows in memory allocation I
> > came with heretic idea:
> >
> > For gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 we expand all multip
