Skip to content

Fix integer overflow panics on guest-derived usize arithmetic (#3)#678

Draft
CvvT wants to merge 1 commit intomicrosoft:mainfrom
CvvT:fix-integer-overflow-guest-arithmetic-v2
Draft

Fix integer overflow panics on guest-derived usize arithmetic (#3)#678
CvvT wants to merge 1 commit intomicrosoft:mainfrom
CvvT:fix-integer-overflow-guest-arithmetic-v2

Conversation

@CvvT
Copy link
Contributor

@CvvT CvvT commented Feb 23, 2026

Fix integer overflow vulnerabilities in guest-derived arithmetic.

As mentioned in #668, I created an agentic workflow to scan the codebase to find and fix all potential integer overflows on a daily basis (see https://github.com/CvvT/litebox/actions/workflows/integer-overflow-scanner.lock.yml). So far it has submitted 3 issues and this PR fixes one of them. I have reviewed this one. This is a trivial PR as replacing existing + with wrapping_add is safe (in most if not all cases).

Fix integer overflow vulnerabilities in guest-derived arithmetic

Co-authored-by: CvvT <11675863+CvvT@users.noreply.github.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: copilot-swe-agent[bot] <198982749+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: CvvT <11675863+CvvT@users.noreply.github.com>
@CvvT CvvT requested a review from wdcui February 23, 2026 19:44
@CvvT CvvT marked this pull request as ready for review February 23, 2026 19:48
@CvvT CvvT marked this pull request as draft February 23, 2026 21:08
@CvvT
Copy link
Contributor Author

CvvT commented Feb 23, 2026

There might be more PR coming (CvvT#6). I can wait until the agent no longer find more issues and submit one single PR, or submit them separately?

@jaybosamiya-ms
Copy link
Member

Glad to see that we can find and fix these up with the agentic workflows. A couple of minor comments:

  • might be good to collate the changes together as one single PR since the changes are all going to be of a very similar nature
  • nit: we should probably use a better title for the PR since that is what gets used for the squash (along with the PR description), and having (#3) or similar from a different repo will set up incorrect links if we need to look at the history. If you really want to point at the other repo there is syntax for that but I think in this case, dropping the #3 is probably the correct move.
  • some of the things found via add a3-rust workflow to generate verification output from Halley Young's Rust checker #647 are of this nature, so just marking it as related

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants