-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 94
No check for signed overflow in some cases. #561
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
Comments
andrew-appel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 21, 2022
and also, fix a bug with extendM that was inadvertently introduced in P.R. #555.
andrew-appel
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 21, 2022
Fix issue #561 (missing check for long-long signed overflow)
roconnor-blockstream
added a commit
to BlockstreamResearch/simplicity
that referenced
this issue
May 27, 2022
Take an unrelease branch from VST that fixes PrincetonUniversity/VST#561
roconnor-blockstream
added a commit
to BlockstreamResearch/simplicity
that referenced
this issue
Oct 24, 2022
Take an unrelease branch from VST that fixes PrincetonUniversity/VST#561
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Consider the following function:
In both cases the
unsigned int
argument is promoted tosigned long
and the multiplication is performed as asigned long
multiplication. In both cases an signed integer overflow could occur and we would need to verify that it does not.However when run through VST only the
d
assignment yields an overflow side-condition check, while thec
assignment appears to progress without checking for overflow.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: