Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 17/02/16(Wed) 20:38, Stefan Kempf wrote:
> > Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > It looks like NetBSD removed the SIOCSIFALIFETIME_IN6 ioctl a long time
> > ago, along with the overflow checks, saying that this ioctl could never
> > have worked:
> > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdwe
On 17/02/16(Wed) 20:38, Stefan Kempf wrote:
> Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 13/02/16(Sat) 18:51, Stefan Kempf wrote:
> > > Some thoughts about this:
> > >
> > > If this particular type of undefined behavior is really a concern: maybe
> > > looking for bounds/overflow checks that are incorrect besi
Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 13/02/16(Sat) 18:51, Stefan Kempf wrote:
> > Some thoughts about this:
> >
> > If this particular type of undefined behavior is really a concern: maybe
> > looking for bounds/overflow checks that are incorrect besides undefined
> > behavior first is a better approach. A
On 13/02/16(Sat) 18:51, Stefan Kempf wrote:
> Some thoughts about this:
>
> If this particular type of undefined behavior is really a concern: maybe
> looking for bounds/overflow checks that are incorrect besides undefined
> behavior first is a better approach. A good way of fixing those will
> be
Some thoughts about this:
If this particular type of undefined behavior is really a concern: maybe
looking for bounds/overflow checks that are incorrect besides undefined
behavior first is a better approach. A good way of fixing those will
be found, which could then be applied to the "just undefin
time_second is a time_t, which we define as int64_t. The other operands
used are of type uint32_t. Therefore, these checks get promoted to
int64_t and the overflow being tested is undefined because it uses
signed arithmetic.
I think that the below diff fixes the overflow check. However, I'm
pretty
