Re: Fix regress/lib/libc/db

2017-04-17 Thread Todd C. Miller
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:12:13 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: "Todd C. Miller" > > Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:49:26 -0600 > > > > Maybe use UINT_MAX since st_size gets cast to u_int below? > > Either way OK millert@ > > Already committed. But INT_MAX is better

Re: Fix regress/lib/libc/db

2017-04-17 Thread Mark Kettenis
> From: "Todd C. Miller" > Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:49:26 -0600 > > Maybe use UINT_MAX since st_size gets cast to u_int below? > Either way OK millert@ Already committed. But INT_MAX is better anyway since there is a cast to int as well and INT_MAX < UINT_MAX.

Re: Fix regress/lib/libc/db

2017-04-17 Thread Todd C. Miller
Maybe use UINT_MAX since st_size gets cast to u_int below? Either way OK millert@ - todd

Fix regress/lib/libc/db

2017-04-16 Thread Mark Kettenis
The db-3 subtest fails on 64-bit systems (and has been failing for a long time, maybe forever?). The problem is that (off_t)SIZE_MAX becomes -1, so the if (sb.st_size > (off_t)SIZE_MAX) condition is always true. Since we pass (int)sb.st_size to read(2), I think checking for INT_MAX is