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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Improve build error on systems that have a 32-bit time_t #104368

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 4, 2024
Merged

Improve build error on systems that have a 32-bit time_t #104368

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8e8e300
Use unsigned arithmetic for 32-bit time check
vcsjones Jul 3, 2024
8b504a1
Update opensslshim.c
vcsjones Jul 3, 2024
18c9020
Update opensslshim.c
vcsjones Jul 3, 2024
c079cc9
Update opensslshim.c
vcsjones Jul 3, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/native/libs/System.Security.Cryptography.Native/opensslshim.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ void InitializeOpenSSLShim(void)
#if defined(TARGET_ARM) && defined(TARGET_LINUX)
// This value will represent a time in year 2038 if 64-bit time is used,
// or 1901 if the lower 32 bits are interpreted as a 32-bit time_t value.
time_t timeVal = (time_t)INT_MAX + 1;
time_t timeVal = (time_t)((unsigned long)INT_MAX + 1u);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why "unsigned long" instead of, e.g. uint32_t?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now that I think about it, both are kind of wrong. This should just be unsigned.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Even more thinking about it, I don't know why we were doing INT_MAX + 1. We could just use 0x80000000 and convert it to a time_t. If time_t is 64-bit, it will be 2038. If it is 32-bit, it will be -2147483648, which is 1901. The conversion is enough to detect overflows.

struct tm tmVal = { 0 };

// Detect whether openssl is using 32-bit or 64-bit time_t.
Expand Down
Loading