On Fri 17-05-24 00:29:06, Justin Stitt wrote:
> When running syzkaller with the newly reintroduced signed integer
> overflow sanitizer we encounter this report:
>
> UBSAN: signed-integer-overflow in ../fs/read_write.c:91:10
> 9223372036854775807 + 4096 cannot be represented in type 'loff_t' (aka '
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:26:47AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:13:22AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:29:06AM +, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > When running syzkaller with the newly reintroduced signed integer
> > > overflow sanitizer we encounter
Hi,
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 6:13 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:29:06AM +, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > When running syzkaller with the newly reintroduced signed integer
> > overflow sanitizer we encounter this report:
>
> why do you keep saying it's unintentional? it's c
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:26:47AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:13:22AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:29:06AM +, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > When running syzkaller with the newly reintroduced signed integer
> > > overflow sanitizer we encounter
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:13:22AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:29:06AM +, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > When running syzkaller with the newly reintroduced signed integer
> > overflow sanitizer we encounter this report:
>
> why do you keep saying it's unintentional? it'
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:29:06AM +, Justin Stitt wrote:
> When running syzkaller with the newly reintroduced signed integer
> overflow sanitizer we encounter this report:
why do you keep saying it's unintentional? it's clearly intended.
