|
BugTraq
gcc 4.1 bug miscompiles pointer range checks, may place you at risk Apr 17 2006 08:03PM Felix von Leitner (felix-bugtraq fefe de) (6 replies) Re: gcc 4.1 bug miscompiles pointer range checks, may place you at risk Apr 18 2006 07:16PM Florian Weimer (fw deneb enyo de) Re: gcc 4.1 bug miscompiles pointer range checks, may place you at risk Apr 18 2006 07:45AM Alexander Klimov (alserkli inbox ru) Re: gcc 4.1 bug miscompiles pointer range checks, may place you at risk Apr 18 2006 12:15AM Nate Eldredge (nge cs hmc edu) Re: gcc 4.1 bug miscompiles pointer range checks, may place you at risk Apr 17 2006 11:57PM Michael Chamberlain (michael chamberlain net au) Re: gcc 4.1 bug miscompiles pointer range checks, may place you at risk Apr 17 2006 10:26PM Forrest J. Cavalier III (mibsoft mibsoftware com) |
|
Privacy Statement |
> static inline int range_ptrinbuf(const void* buf,unsigned long len,const void* ptr) {
> register const char* c=(const char*)buf; /* no pointer arithmetic on void* */
> return (c && c+len>c && (const char*)ptr-c<len);
> }
$ gcc-4.1 -W -Wall t.c
t.c:5: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
> gcc 3 compiles this code correctly. I tested this on x86 and amd64.
> I mention this here because "c+len>c" is the code with which you would
> typically check for integer overflows, which is a check that for example
> an IP stack would do, or Samba.
AFAIK C99 states that the value of that expression is "undefined". So
IMHO this is an application bug, not a bug in gcc.
Gabor
--
---------------------------------------------------------
MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
---------------------------------------------------------
[ reply ]