From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <musl-return-20460-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.openwall.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from second.openwall.net (second.openwall.net [193.110.157.125])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C3B1273B9
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 02:30:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 15846 invoked by uid 550); 26 Feb 2024 01:27:19 -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 15811 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2024 01:27:18 -0000
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 20:30:56 -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: <20240226013056.GE4163@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>
 <20231202162941.GC4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231202162941.GC4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [musl] Large overflow in __intscan ignored

On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 11:29:41AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> 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...

Was this bug ever reported/tracked-down/fixed on the wasm side?

Rich