Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:48:55 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <>
Subject: Re: Possible infinite loop in qsort()

* Alexander Cherepanov <> [2016-01-12 15:25:57 +0300]:

> On 2016-01-10 14:38, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 11:05:16PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> >>On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:07:19AM +0100, Felix Janda wrote:
> >>>musl enforces that object sizes should not be greater than PTRDIFF_MAX.
> >>>See for example the discussion at
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So there will not be objects of size 3GB with musl on x32. Since the
> >>>Leonardo numbers grow slower than 2^n in general no overflow should
> >>>happen if "size" is valid. Otherwise, UB was invoked.
> >>
> >
> >OK. Might want to make that assumption a bit more prominent, because
> >this is the first time I've ever heard about it, but OK, no objects >2GB
> >on 32-bit archs.
> Yeah, I don't see it in the doc. Did I miss it?
> If it neither works nor documented as a limit I'd call it a bug.

in musl things are documented in the git log for now, e.g.:

i think if an implementation does not give this guarantee
that should be considered a bug.

(glibc does not guarantee this and indeed it is full of invalid
pointer arithmetics, but more importantly a huge number of
existing libraries depend on this)

> BTW the support in compilers for working with objects larger than half the
> address space is buggy -- see
> . The same situation --
> it neither works nor documented. Somewhat puzzling...

yes, but it's not possible to support reasonably

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.