-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 165
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
fix(libsinsp): fix regression in signed comparison #1905
fix(libsinsp): fix regression in signed comparison #1905
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Luca Guerra <[email protected]>
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 06048a84b35a1ecb6b3005c344d01d4078e1bb47
|
/hold |
/hold adding a couple test to make sure this is actually fixed |
df39a50
to
f69be8c
Compare
Signed-off-by: Luca Guerra <[email protected]>
f69be8c
to
90df565
Compare
/unhold |
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.
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 19fe676a31a4e0be180f14aaaddf7329d75ffc31
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: incertum, leogr, LucaGuerra The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area libsinsp
Does this PR require a change in the driver versions?
No
What this PR does / why we need it:
Libs 0.17.0 had some changes in numeric compare and casting. However, it looks like we are now doing unsigned comparison even if the data is signed, meaning that sinsp is thinking that
-1 > 10000
. This requires a bit of testing to see if it is the case but we need to fix it for the next patch release. Also cover comparisons with tests.See: falcosecurity/falco#3245
/milestone 0.17.2
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: