-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Protect against passing i128::MIN
to abs()
which causes overflow
#2241
Merged
+1
−1
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
eaa2616
Protect against passing `i128::MIN` to `abs()` which causes overflow
rafal-ch 5c0f1fd
Extract `safe_signed_abs()` function
rafal-ch 056ba1e
Use `saturating_abs()` to protect against overflow
rafal-ch 3047c7e
Test overflow fix via `update_l2_block_data()`
rafal-ch af9263d
Merge branch 'master' into 2210_prevent_overflow_in_abs
MitchTurner 7359bd7
Remove the redundant test as `da_change` no longer panics
rafal-ch 6188112
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/2210_prevent_overflow_in_abs' …
rafal-ch faeefca
Merge branch 'master' into 2210_prevent_overflow_in_abs
rafal-ch File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's not test private functions. We should be able to test this with
update_l2_block_data
. And we can add a SUT and given/when/then.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated in 3047c7e, however, I'm not fully convinced this fits better here.
Rationale:
we need to carefully select the values in order to trigger the "what used to be" an overflow inside
da_change()
. Now, if we, for example, change how thetotal_da_rewards_excess
is updated here or how we calculate P and D here we may cause theda_change()
to be invoked with values that do not cause overflow and the test will pass with bothabs()
andsaturating_abs()
.I'm open to suggestions on how we can do this better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd be okay with removing the test since there are many places in the code that "could" panic if programmed poorly.
It might be worth adding some more aggressive prop testing for those cases, but that could be a separate issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this boils down to the fact that people (me, at least) do not associate an "innocent"
abs()
call with a possible panic. Thinkunwrap
s orexpect
s - these are usually caught during the review process and removed from the production code + after removing them, we do not add a test.So yes, I agree that this test is kinda redundant - I removed it in 7359bd7
What we could do is:
Wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Currently we have
But I'd be open to adding more for sure.