On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:09:29 GMT, Ferenc Rakoczi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yes, I believe it should. That makes me wonder why the test did not fail. I >> would have expected it to loop back to the top and try to consume an extra >> 96 bytes of non-existent input and write it to 64 bytes of of non-existent >> output buffer? Did this erroneous computation not happen? or was the error >> simply not manifest? > > It is a buffer overflow, so if the memory after the arrays is there, it would > be read/written, if you are lucky, it doesn't overwrite anything that is used > later, so it might be able to pass a test program (which definitely had > happened here). Yes, it should. Fixed. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29141#discussion_r2690431947
