[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/8] libelf: loop safety: Introduce elf_iter_ok and elf_strcmp_safe
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/8] libelf: loop safety: Introduce elf_iter_ok and elf_strcmp_safe"): > Well, I have to confess that I've read the above as max() when > in fact it is min(). Sadly we can't use min() and max() here it seems. > On 12.12.16 at 17:00, <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The max_size_for_deacc part is necessary because otherwise the > > calculation "size * ELF_MAX_ITERATION_FACTOR" might overflow. It > > seems unreasonable to simply allow that overflow to occur. But if it > > is causing confusion we could do that. The result would be a low > > value for iteration_deaccumulator. > > Considering that overflow here will actually result in a comparably > smaller upper limit, I think this may help overall readability. But with > the above I won't insist on this in any way. I have replaced the limit with a comment. Now I have: elf->iteration_deaccumulator = 1024*1024 + size * ELF_MAX_ITERATION_FACTOR; /* overflow (from very big size, probably rejected earlier) * would just lead to small limit, which is safe */ Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |