[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kern/49692: impossibly large mmap does not fail
The following reply was made to PR kern/49692; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>
Subject: Re: kern/49692: impossibly large mmap does not fail
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 14:01:34 +0100
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 06:40:01AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR kern/49692; it has been noted by GNATS.
> From: David Holland <dholland-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>
> To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: kern/49692: impossibly large mmap does not fail
> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 06:35:08 +0000
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 07:05:00PM +0000, Justin Cormack wrote:
> > On 24 February 2015 at 18:53, Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:
> > > Note that -1 is not a multiple of the machines PAGE_SIZE, so it gets
> > > rounded up to the next full page.
> > Ah yes, -8192 say is ok and gives ENOMEM. But it is size_t so it is
> > unsigned, so with *size_t)-1 that is an unsigned overflow to 0 that is
> > taking place, which is undefined behaviour.
> Eh wut? No it isn't. It's signed overflow that's undefined.
I still believe that we should catch it in the system call.
Main Index |
Thread Index |