> However, if this is a real issue it would make more > sense to look for and change all such checks rather than one single occurrence. Hi, Mike. I have checked the example code you provided, and the difference between those codes and the patched code is that those checks are checks for unsigned integer overflow, which is well-defined. Only undefined behavior poses a security risk. So they don't need any modifications. I have only found one occurrence of signed number overflow so far. Thank you for your valuable feedback.
