Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:22:09 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Use of size_t and ssize_t in mseek On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:49:41AM +1000, Matthew Fernandez wrote: > >As a user of musl, what's your take on this? > > A check in fmemopen (and other affected functions) would be my preferred > solution, as an unwitting user like myself who doesn't check all the > assumptions would still be caught out by just documenting it as > undefined. I would be happy with just an assert-fail here if that's easiest.. The easiest might just be making fmemopen so it doesn't care if the size is insanely large. As far as I can tell, the only place it's an issue is in mseek, and we could use off_t instead of ssize_t. On 32-bit systems, off_t is 64-bit, so all sizes fit. On 64-bit systems, there's no way (physically!) to have an object as large as 1UL<<63. Alternatively, I could adjust the arithmetic to just avoid working with signed values, and perhaps make it more obvious what it's doing in the process. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.