Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] libbpf: Fix signed overflow in ringbuf_process_ring
From: Brendan Jackman
Date: Mon May 03 2021 - 08:02:55 EST
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 18:31, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 6:05 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Note: I feel a bit guilty about the fact that this makes the reader
> > think about implicit conversions. Nobody likes thinking about that.
> > But explicit casts don't really help with clarity:
> > return (int)min(cnt, (int64_t)INT_MAX); // ugh
> I'd go with
> if (cnt > INT_MAX)
> return INT_MAX;
> return cnt;
Sure, it has all the same implicit casts/promotions but I guess it's
> If you don't mind, I can patch it up while applying?
Yes please do, thanks!