Re: Possible bug in malloc-code

> > If a section is larger than INT_MAX, then overflow seems to occur here
> > in __elfN_coredump():
> >
> > % for (i = 0; i < seginfo.count; i++) {
> > % error = vn_rdwr_inchunks(UIO_WRITE, vp,
> > %     (caddr_t)php->p_vaddr, php->p_filesz, offset,
> >                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > %     UIO_USERSPACE, IO_DIRECT, cred, NOCRED, NULL, td);
> >
> > php->p_filesz has type u_int64_t on 64-bit machines, but here it gets
> > silently converted to int, so it overflows if the size is larger than
> > INT_MAX.  (Overflow may occur even on 32-bit machines, but it's harder
> > to fit a section larger than INT_MAX on a 32-bit machine.)  If ints
> > are 32-bits 2's complement and the section size is between 2^31 and
> > 2^32-1 inclusive, then the above asks vn_rdwr() a negative length.
> > The negative length apparently gets as far as ffs_write() before
> > causing a panic.
> >
> > It;s a longstanding bug that ssize_t is 64 bits and SSIZE_MAX is
> > 2^63-1 on 64 bit machines, but writes from userland are limited to
> > INT_MAX (normally 2^31-1), so 64-bit applications would have a hard
> > time writing huge amounts.  Core dumps apparently have the same
> > problem writing large sections.  A text section with size 2GB would
> > be huge, but a data section with size 2GB is just large.
> >
> > The traceback should show the args, but that seems to be broken for
> > amd64's.

Am I right in assuming that instead of 'int len' as parameter it then should
read ssize_t??? Since that is what the description of ssize_t is. 
Although I would expect ssize_t to be defined unsigned..

--WjW