From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Sun Aug 16 13:09:50 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1877E9B9B84 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:09:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0FC619C0 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:09:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id t7GD9noI005370 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:09:49 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 202326] libteken assert() fail and result in kernel panic Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:09:50 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: ed@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:09:50 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202326 --- Comment #5 from Ed Schouten --- That's a good point. I was merely focussing on cases where short is 16 bits and integers are >= 32 bits. Do you think using something like `UINT_MAX / k` is a better idea? If we were to pick k == 100, the possible value would top out at approximately `UINT_MAX / 10` and I think it would be pretty safe to perform arithmetic on that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.