We only use scratch space internally, so this is not an issue for the user (scratch API functions have been removed since 0.6.0, see #1620), but fixing this might still make sense to prepare for the unlikely case that we expose the scratch API again in the future. An alternative could be to simply delete the scratch space functionality already, as e.g. done in PR #1789.
Reported by Project Loupe
We only use scratch space internally, so this is not an issue for the
user (scratch API functions have been removed since 0.6.0), but fixing
this might still make sense to prepare for the unlikely case that we
expose the scratch API again in the future. An alternative could be
to simply delete the scratch space functionality already, as e.g. done
in PR #1789.
419 | @@ -420,6 +420,12 @@ static void run_scratch_tests(void) { 420 | CHECK(secp256k1_scratch_alloc(&CTX->error_callback, scratch, SIZE_MAX) == NULL); 421 | secp256k1_scratch_space_destroy(CTX, scratch); 422 | 423 | + /* Creating a scratch space whose size would wrap around when the aligned 424 | + * header size is added to it fails, both for SIZE_MAX and for the smallest 425 | + * size that still wraps. */ 426 | + CHECK(secp256k1_scratch_space_create(CTX, SIZE_MAX) == NULL);
Had a very similar finding a while back: https://github.com/l0rinc/secp256k1/commit/d7e3b4925c9a97aca6ffb4e7e55e0591f1f8d470