Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/8] libelf: loop safety: Introduce elf_iter_ok
and elf_strcmp_safe"):
> Well, I have to confess that I've read the above as max() when
> in fact it is min().
Sadly we can't use min() and max() here it seems.
> On 12.12.16 at 17:00, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > The max_size_for_deacc part is necessary because otherwise the
> > calculation "size * ELF_MAX_ITERATION_FACTOR" might overflow. It
> > seems unreasonable to simply allow that overflow to occur. But if it
> > is causing confusion we could do that. The result would be a low
> > value for iteration_deaccumulator.
>
> Considering that overflow here will actually result in a comparably
> smaller upper limit, I think this may help overall readability. But with
> the above I won't insist on this in any way.
I have replaced the limit with a comment. Now I have:
elf->iteration_deaccumulator =
1024*1024 + size * ELF_MAX_ITERATION_FACTOR;
/* overflow (from very big size, probably rejected earlier)
* would just lead to small limit, which is safe */
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
