From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 14940 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2023 16:29:44 -0000
Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Dec 2023 16:29:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 3250 invoked by uid 550); 2 Dec 2023 16:29:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 3205 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2023 16:29:34 -0000
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 11:29:41 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com, Anuraag Agrawal <anuraaga@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20231202162941.GC4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <CAOWvS+0oOjLue4S=E1ua7oMMe-EZn_zaU3RvYDMuSGNxDP2isw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZWoIGGT49V-21l0d@voyager>
 <CAOWvS+2BrX2qM+JwSYO-hGbSFJ8Dbkjg_ef3nfboc8c5Q=UmgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZWrvem7pTxtOkQUq@voyager>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZWrvem7pTxtOkQUq@voyager>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [musl] Large overflow in __intscan ignored

On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> Am Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 10:42:11AM +0900 schrieb Anuraag Agrawal:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks for checking and very sorry for the noise, I didn't read the loop
> > condition correctly. I am using Webassembly so the issue must be specific
> > to it somehow. I will report on wasi-libc to follow up.
> >
> > Thanks,
> 
> Don't worry about it. The only way I see this could overflow is if
> ULLONG_MAX is not the correct limit for what the compiler implements as
> "unsigned long long". Though I don't see how that could be, since musl
> defines ULLONG_MAX as the minimum value the type can have according to
> the C standard.
> 
> Or else, of course, maybe the compiler's implementation of 64-bit
> multiplication is broken.

Ouch, sounds like this is going to be some sort of big wasm bug...

Rich