command: plug another slop faucet
In the 2020s, now known as "the twilight years of modern
civilization", Silicon Valley's two most morbidly obese failsons
finally found their niche: a product that lets complete imbeciles
pretend to be software developers. This was, at least for a
while, a smash hit. Hordes of claudecucked vibechuds began
spamming free software projects with bogus "security bugs" and
associated even worse fixes, both of which they did not know how
to reason about, and definitely did not care to learn how to
reason about. The entire exercise, after all, was to get one's
name into the list of contributors, to get ahead in a highly
competitive job market of economies with equally torturous
education systems.
To the disturbingly moist-looking tech oligarchs recording
Goldman Sachs jerk-off instructons on their podcasts, this was a
profound shift in software development. Now, they no longer had
to pay 6 figures to some idiot who doesn't know how to program so
chooses React, and instead they can pay 6 figures to some
application that doesn't know how to program so chooses React.
For everyone else, it just added to the torment that is life in a
modern globalised service economy, where the fruits of their
labour are siphoned off and directed towards building ever
grander and more opulent paedophile island resorts.
But back to the code. Someone submitted a slop issue about how
there's UB if you run an input command with bogus parameters.
This is hardly a bug, since the commands are trusted, so the fix
is "don't do dumb shit". However, contextless vibechuddies saw
this as an opportunity to fire up their deeply subsidized
planet-burners and shit out some code they had no idea about what
it did.
LLMs, failing to have any real reasoning, tried twice, and failed
twice, to find the real """fix""" here. #18144 decided that
another condition needed to be added to the logical OR, whereas
the subsequent #18211 instead wanted to do an explicit cast to
size_t for no fucking reason. Funnily enough, the unsignedness of
size_t doesn't cause any problems here, because of the earlier
check to make sure `w` is positive.
Both of them missed that if `foo < bar * 4` overflows `bar`, you
can just check for `foo / 4 < bar`, which is an efficient
division as 4 is a power of 2, and the integer division here does
not lead to any problems because the check is a range check.
Do that, just to stop these stupid fucking PRs from popping up,
and deny these dumb shitheads the satisfaction of getting their
name into the contributor stats.
Closes #18128.
1 file changed
Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
