From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-91491-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 72201 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2018 14:54:52 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 72184 invoked by uid 89); 10 Apr 2018 14:54:51 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mail-wr0-f181.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to:cc;
        bh=AJoElKO4FYuz0qisI6kQgxWoMzJIIPBtWcLvvP3c+M8=;
        b=o+87EPMdEVL2Ztn8xIY121PLG6cu5qHgT7SBZ2HxrK8p63TlEXgLpEhxPH4DFWOb9O
         bgyTQhRmljPzQV3eDb4uk/CnGM0KPdOROFcb+0cxztVIDyZ/u3V8UjthXICmhEiq3Bwv
         S5CtoLKmT1OnFjndfZORVaS7u7SsZE+Mt8aD1V5A5HEYFlS1douYe5UHEEjLjVr+jg/B
         ExDwaDMpNV7VwLSiYkY34740EwrxKe5WL2rQYpTCfC1Gk2HCECIBL/Ij/7lBNqVNrSLM
         QVpj/l2/cJIVgsXTA9tNgPF7GEiiTiFB9VEWamnm8iHLIzt0/hrXpsgMFsQawYhv2Y8s
         TDpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCJgbCSTmjcGfLT2fPAT7bxdYsxj2mq7XfbHvnLGsdLHDellFIY
	MAgSptjdoZJhdsjDt8b4ssy8i0DpH3u8zofw6CdOEQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49zJnK1RJgPS1viKMpgCCCQZ1i7HVFBt5KHxBl6TTC+EgUD0KnQxms3qPk2LEhEbjIgmKWzJccEzF5vrbnqhxs=
X-Received: by 10.223.195.116 with SMTP id e49mr586386wrg.5.1523372086570;
 Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALoOobOyeu6SM7DGPRqmHE6Y7BckFGmEFGeeFKDKjskL4EJDuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALoOobMWCHXYh-3rDeSfHauaOtpMmVMpv_obPA8Dk9ubTvfK=Q@mail.gmail.com> <mvm37037ab2.fsf@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <mvm37037ab2.fsf@suse.de>
From: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:54:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CALoOobMU+rWbVOXbn3LsA-u83JYj+5_-XRz6yHCACDdqwhL2Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix path length overflow in realpath (BZ#22786)
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Cc: GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:08 AM Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:

> Trying to allocate a block of INT_MAX+1 is rather likely to fail on a
> 32-bit platform.

But that's the only way to test for this overflow AFAICT.

Should I submit the fix without the test?
Should I submit the fix and the test, but disabled?
Should I change the test to pass if allocation fails?

Thanks,
--
Paul Pluzhnikov