From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 35388 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2015 19:50:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 35371 invoked by uid 89); 24 Mar 2015 19:50:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtp.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:50:00 -0000 From: Mike Frysinger To: Szabolcs Nagy Cc: Mark Wielaard , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" , Josh Stone Subject: Re: [PATCH] elf.h SHF_EXCLUDE signed int 31 bit shift triggers undefined behaviour. Message-ID: <20150324195038.GH10761@vapier> Mail-Followup-To: Szabolcs Nagy , Mark Wielaard , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" , Josh Stone References: <1427193579-26102-1-git-send-email-mjw@redhat.com> <55117118.1080706@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8/pVXlBMPtxfSuJG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55117118.1080706@arm.com> X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00749.txt.bz2 --8/pVXlBMPtxfSuJG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 645 On 24 Mar 2015 14:13, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 24/03/15 10:39, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Any use of SHF_EXCLUDE in code that tries to check it against sh_flags > > will trigger undefined behaviour because it is defined as a 31 bit shift > > against an signed integer. Fix by explicitly using an unsigned int. >=20 > there is another proposed patch for this >=20 > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-03/msg00287.html >=20 > > ChangeLog | 4 ++++ > > elf/elf.h | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >=20 >=20 > i think changelog entries are supposed to be submitted separately nope ... should be same commit -mike --8/pVXlBMPtxfSuJG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-length: 819 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVEcAOAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBEtoP+wQByuSVJtNgkil5dJXUpogq frOVx14oG/VhNSARInlis4xpYWDAt1gwWkFEV3mIEAyibpqY6bO/55nA3FQKdtrH kG1b1hj3VtTKsbael/VP4chn4csSe00/KznBgK1a0rXROJwMl98YIvJeSD1v9lSm 3U3gEqiXqooffdKMfHHRUtkNsNBbGNXzt2J+BVGl7Z8BB/FVG2m3A2kAskdgBY8E 8fqeTn3P33cduQYVhmBKuRUgUYMa7kZFYB0z81X30hQeBJBuFaYa1LK1demaA5TV Bp5VYSkfJMqpvhneNyw9hPot/ITv5we3EvLnTnNM+ltbxss6I3nNqCtkeRXn/D5i +h2clwYvMarssCQX/+RehGtNk1115LL4YhHRZt8N552q7cn029yLM/NQAemXPAb8 9WbYVRsICKAAt9z41Q7JRV96vhpbVHmxqN9zKX/ghFYzUv1rp56uADS1ecMunaLw DcSBcXzA0Lo+nlPxJM28max+uweTh6RnV8jtbNV+Qnt8dYdjPi1WxwJZ58okwO4L X+Qsur7xrTpdX1Gs7lPCwdP/m7UMVwQA2VN5ZlsQGnylqvhndEl6FwMoaFC3+sPA XbBDp7uITbsmI9msK6Pol2xcHMxA5wlDyBgKLaavEP+syxCoI6vw14G3imt2sajf xnVcKKcPQErOWiy5lhtT =Nhbl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8/pVXlBMPtxfSuJG--