On 11.03.2019 0:52, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:06 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
IIRC, this has been attempted before, causing a userspace regression
because some sysfs/procfs file matched with %u or %x, and somebody wrote
-1 to get 0x .
.. which is correct anyway. T
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 2:06 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> IIRC, this has been attempted before, causing a userspace regression
> because some sysfs/procfs file matched with %u or %x, and somebody wrote
> -1 to get 0x .
.. which is correct anyway. That's how scanf is supposed to work.
I
On 10/03/2019 17.56, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Traditional scanf implementations ignore integer overflows because
> C language standard allows here undefined behavior (§7.21.6.2 #10).
>
> So, sane and safe behavior wouldn't harm anything.
>
> This patch carefully checks integer overflows and
Traditional scanf implementations ignore integer overflows because
C language standard allows here undefined behavior (§7.21.6.2 #10).
So, sane and safe behavior wouldn't harm anything.
This patch carefully checks integer overflows and stops matching if result
does not fit into appropriate type b
4 matches
Mail list logo