From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CBA53857C44 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:29:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2CBA53857C44 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mliska@suse.cz X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA5DAFA0; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:29:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use size_t for mallinfo fields. To: DJ Delorie , Florian Weimer Cc: schwab@linux-m68k.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:29:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:29:35 -0000 On 8/11/20 7:08 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > Florian Weimer writes: >> DJ, what do you think about this patch? > > I have no real problems with the patch, but two minor things that could > be handled in a follow-up patch... Thank you for the review. Can I read it as ready to go into master? > > 1. The copy code for the old function doesn't handle overflow. We've > seen bug reports for this before so should consider the edge cases. > IMHO if a size_t value is larger than MAXINT, then MAXINT (or -1) > should be stored instead of a randomly truncated value. > > 2. The new documentation makes no mention of the older "compatible" > interface. > Both comments are valid to me and I can address them in a follow-up patch. Martin