On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:05:12PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 06:45:08PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> > "UB" stands for undefined behaviour. that's the reason why cppcheck is
> > unhappy.
> > how do that properly - that's the question :)
>
> The thing is that I'm not awa
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 06:45:08PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> "UB" stands for undefined behaviour. that's the reason why cppcheck is
> unhappy.
> how do that properly - that's the question :)
The thing is that I'm not aware of any other way to safely detect integer
overflows, it's always done li
"UB" stands for undefined behaviour. that's the reason why cppcheck is
unhappy.
how do that properly - that's the question :)
2018-03-20 10:48 GMT+05:00 Willy Tarreau :
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 06:55:46PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> > (it's master)
> >
> > is it in purpose ?
> >
> > [src/ssl_so
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 06:55:46PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> (it's master)
>
> is it in purpose ?
>
> [src/ssl_sock.c:1553]: (warning) Invalid test for overflow
> 'msg+rec_len overflow is UB.
The code is :
rec_len = (msg[0] << 8) + msg[1];
msg += 2;
if (msg + rec_len
(it's master)
is it in purpose ?
[src/ssl_sock.c:1553]: (warning) Invalid test for overflow
'msg+rec_len
5 matches
Mail list logo