This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] Fix path length overflow in realpath (BZ#22786)

From: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
Cc: GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:54:18 +0000
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix path length overflow in realpath (BZ#22786)
References: <CALoOobOyeu6SM7DGPRqmHE6Y7BckFGmEFGeeFKDKjskL4EJDuA@mail.gmail.com> <CALoOobMWCHXYh-3rDeSfHauaOtpMmVMpv_obPA8Dk9ubTvfK=Q@mail.gmail.com> <mvm37037ab2.fsf@suse.de>

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:08 AM Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:

> Trying to allocate a block of INT_MAX+1 is rather likely to fail on a
> 32-bit platform.

But that's the only way to test for this overflow AFAICT.

Should I submit the fix without the test?
Should I submit the fix and the test, but disabled?
Should I change the test to pass if allocation fails?

Thanks,
--
Paul Pluzhnikov

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] Fix path length overflow in realpath (BZ#22786)
  - From: Andreas Schwab
- Re: [patch] Fix path length overflow in realpath (BZ#22786)
  - From: Alexander Monakov

References:
- [patch] Fix path length overflow in realpath (BZ#22786)
  - From: Paul Pluzhnikov
- Re: [patch] Fix path length overflow in realpath (BZ#22786)
  - From: Paul Pluzhnikov
- Re: [patch] Fix path length overflow in realpath (BZ#22786)
  - From: Andreas Schwab

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]