# HG changeset patch
# User Christian Brabandt <cb@256bit.org>
# Date 1700169312 -3600
# Node ID 377ed6ab612c862c5f5cbfd3576b68b083bdb2d0
# Parent  731efc10982ac2023f79e3564f854413a65014f9
patch 9.0.2110: [security]: overflow in ex address parsing

Commit: https://github.com/vim/vim/commit/060623e4a3bc72b011e7cd92bedb3bfb64e06200
Author: Christian Brabandt <cb@256bit.org>
Date:   Tue Nov 14 21:33:29 2023 +0100

    patch 9.0.2110: [security]: overflow in ex address parsing

    Problem:  [security]: overflow in ex address parsing
    Solution: Verify that lnum is positive, before substracting from
              LONG_MAX

    [security]: overflow in ex address parsing

    When parsing relative ex addresses one may unintentionally cause an
    overflow (because LONG_MAX - lnum will overflow for negative addresses).

    So verify that lnum is actually positive before doing the overflow
    check.

    Signed-off-by: Christian Brabandt <cb@256bit.org>

diff --git a/src/ex_docmd.c b/src/ex_docmd.c
--- a/src/ex_docmd.c
+++ b/src/ex_docmd.c
@@ -4644,7 +4644,7 @@ get_address(
 		    lnum -= n;
 		else
 		{
-		    if (n >= LONG_MAX - lnum)
+		    if (lnum >= 0 && n >= LONG_MAX - lnum)
 		    {
 			emsg(_(e_line_number_out_of_range));
 			goto error;
diff --git a/src/testdir/test_excmd.vim b/src/testdir/test_excmd.vim
--- a/src/testdir/test_excmd.vim
+++ b/src/testdir/test_excmd.vim
@@ -724,5 +724,9 @@ func Test_write_after_rename()
   bwipe!
 endfunc
 
+" catch address lines overflow
+func Test_ex_address_range_overflow()
+  call assert_fails(':--+foobar', 'E492:')
+endfunc
 
 " vim: shiftwidth=2 sts=2 expandtab
diff --git a/src/version.c b/src/version.c
--- a/src/version.c
+++ b/src/version.c
@@ -705,6 +705,8 @@ static char *(features[]) =
 static int included_patches[] =
 {   /* Add new patch number below this line */
 /**/
+    2110,
+/**/
     2109,
 /**/
     2108,