On 11/17/23 06:50, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> Thanks both. I have created the following PR to address this
> and another issue reported by Coverity:
> https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/13539
>
> I think it should work as expected now, but please verify.
It looks correct to me. Thanks for the rapid
On Fr, 17 Nov 2023, Michael Henry wrote:
> Hi, Ernie,
>
> > I just tried the following as a single compare at entry
> > (derived from: x * 10 + digit <= max)
>
> if (x > ((INT_MAX - digit) / 10)) return FAIL;
>
> > AFAICT, it replicates your results without a separate check
> > for addit
Hi, Ernie,
> I just tried the following as a single compare at entry
> (derived from: x * 10 + digit <= max)
if (x > ((INT_MAX - digit) / 10)) return FAIL;
> AFAICT, it replicates your results without a separate check
> for addition.
Yes, I think `x > ((INT_MAX - digit) / 10)` is an accura
Hi Michael,
I appreciate seeing your analysis; I did a flawed analysis. I screwed up
trying to get it "perfect" with a single compare.
I just tried the following as a single compare at entry (derived from: x
* 10 + digit <= max)
if (x > ((INT_MAX - digit) / 10)) return FAIL;
AFAICT, it
All,
I noticed these two patches too late to comment on the associated pull
request:
- patch 9.0.2111: [security]: overflow in get_number:
- patch 9.0.2109: [security]: overflow in nv_z_get_count:
Both perform overflow detection similarly, verifying that multiplication
by 10 does not overflow; i
