It is embarrassing for glibc not to check for overflow in calloc implementation prior to 2002. It is not only a security flaw but also violation of C Standards (even the first version ratified in 1989, usually referred…
The code in question violates the newer C standards (C99, C11). For instance, it doesn't even compile using "gcc -std=c99 -pedantic-errors". In the older C standard (C89), the code has undefined behaviour because…
It is embarrassing for glibc not to check for overflow in calloc implementation prior to 2002. It is not only a security flaw but also violation of C Standards (even the first version ratified in 1989, usually referred…
The code in question violates the newer C standards (C99, C11). For instance, it doesn't even compile using "gcc -std=c99 -pedantic-errors". In the older C standard (C89), the code has undefined behaviour because…