lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: 18 Apr 2006 15:44:18 -0000
From: jat-public01@...t.org
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: gcc 4.1 bug miscompiles pointer range checks, may place you
 at risk


Are you certain that should fail?

(unsigned long)-1 is a word with all bits set (on a twos-complement machine), so I believe the result should be undefined with regard to overflow adding a pointer.

It certainly seems reasonable for a compiler to optimize away a test for a pointer in the range of p to p+MAXINT-1, if p has the same number of bits as MAXINT.

If you really want to test for negative buffer sizes, you need to declare the length as long rather than unsigned long.

John Tamplin



Powered by blists - more mailing lists