Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

jit: use correct type when checking for max stack value #73

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 6, 2022

Conversation

carenas
Copy link
Contributor

@carenas carenas commented Jan 6, 2022

eb42305 (jit: avoid integer wraparound in stack size definition (#42),
2021-11-19) introduces a check to avoid an integer overflow when
allocating stack size for JIT.

Unfortunately the maximum value was using PCRE2_SIZE_MAX, eventhough
the variable is of type size_t, so correct it.

Practically; the issue shouldn't affect the most common configurations
where both values are the same, and it will be unlikely that there would
be a configuration where PCRE2_SIZE_MAX > SIZE_MAX, hence the mistake
is unlikely to have reintroduced the original bug and this change should
be therefore mostly equivalent.

Signed-off-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón carenas@gmail.com

eb42305 (jit: avoid integer wraparound in stack size definition (PCRE2Project#42),
2021-11-19) introduces a check to avoid an integer overflow when
allocating stack size for JIT.

Unfortunately the maximum value was using PCRE2_SIZE_MAX, eventhough
the variable is of type size_t, so correct it.

Practically; the issue shouldn't affect the most common configurations
where both values are the same, and it will be unlikely that there would
be a configuration where PCRE2_SIZE_MAX > SIZE_MAX, hence the mistake
is unlikely to have reintroduced the original bug and this change should
be therefore mostly equivalent.

Signed-off-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com>
Copy link
Collaborator

@zherczeg zherczeg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants