Fix integer overflow in FastUInt32ToBufferLeft

Fix integer overflow in FastUInt32ToBufferLeft

If digits > 2, and int is 32 bit, line 999 overflows. The upstream PR is
https://github.com/google/protobuf/pull/2496

BUG=673488

[xyzzyz, 2016-12-13 19:23:48]

xyzzyz@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ pkasting@chromium.org

[Peter Kasting, 2016-12-13 19:27:46]

Is it critical to land this now?  https://codereview.chromium.org/2495533002/
seems to be very near to pulling a new protobuf HEAD, so if this lands upstream
and that happens, would that be soon enough?

If not, then RS LGTM on landing this locally, but be sure that the patch that
lands on that other CL includes this change and reverts the local patch you're
adding.

[xyzzyz, 2016-12-13 19:33:56]

On 2016/12/13 19:27:46, Peter Kasting wrote:
> Is it critical to land this now?  https://codereview.chromium.org/2495533002/
> seems to be very near to pulling a new protobuf HEAD, so if this lands
upstream
> and that happens, would that be soon enough?
> 
> If not, then RS LGTM on landing this locally, but be sure that the patch that
> lands on that other CL includes this change and reverts the local patch you're
> adding.

Asked in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=673488 .

[xyzzyz, 2016-12-13 19:40:46]

On 2016/12/13 19:33:56, xyzzyz wrote:
> On 2016/12/13 19:27:46, Peter Kasting wrote:
> > Is it critical to land this now? 
https://codereview.chromium.org/2495533002/
> > seems to be very near to pulling a new protobuf HEAD, so if this lands
> upstream
> > and that happens, would that be soon enough?
> > 
> > If not, then RS LGTM on landing this locally, but be sure that the patch
that
> > lands on that other CL includes this change and reverts the local patch
you're
> > adding.
> 
> Asked in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=673488 .

OK, seems like it can wait a few days.

[xyzzyz, 2016-12-13 23:48:04]

On 2016/12/13 19:40:46, xyzzyz wrote:
> On 2016/12/13 19:33:56, xyzzyz wrote:
> > On 2016/12/13 19:27:46, Peter Kasting wrote:
> > > Is it critical to land this now? 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2495533002/
> > > seems to be very near to pulling a new protobuf HEAD, so if this lands
> > upstream
> > > and that happens, would that be soon enough?
> > > 
> > > If not, then RS LGTM on landing this locally, but be sure that the patch
> that
> > > lands on that other CL includes this change and reverts the local patch
> you're
> > > adding.
> > 
> > Asked in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=673488 .
> 
> OK, seems like it can wait a few days.

It was just merged upstream, so let's wait for the roll. I'll delete this issue
when that happens.

[Peter Kasting, 2017-02-11 01:54:44]

On 2016/12/13 23:48:04, xyzzyz wrote:
> On 2016/12/13 19:40:46, xyzzyz wrote:
> > On 2016/12/13 19:33:56, xyzzyz wrote:
> > > On 2016/12/13 19:27:46, Peter Kasting wrote:
> > > > Is it critical to land this now? 
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2495533002/
> > > > seems to be very near to pulling a new protobuf HEAD, so if this lands
> > > upstream
> > > > and that happens, would that be soon enough?
> > > > 
> > > > If not, then RS LGTM on landing this locally, but be sure that the patch
> > that
> > > > lands on that other CL includes this change and reverts the local patch
> > you're
> > > > adding.
> > > 
> > > Asked in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=673488 .
> > 
> > OK, seems like it can wait a few days.
> 
> It was just merged upstream, so let's wait for the roll. I'll delete this
issue
> when that happens.

It seems like the attempt to pull a new HEAD has stalled due to the build
breaking (3x...) after checkins after green tryruns.

Any interest in trying to push a new roll through?  Or should we give up and
land this?

[xyzzyz, 2017-02-15 20:47:45]

On 2017/02/11 01:54:44, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On 2016/12/13 23:48:04, xyzzyz wrote:
> > On 2016/12/13 19:40:46, xyzzyz wrote:
> > > On 2016/12/13 19:33:56, xyzzyz wrote:
> > > > On 2016/12/13 19:27:46, Peter Kasting wrote:
> > > > > Is it critical to land this now? 
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2495533002/
> > > > > seems to be very near to pulling a new protobuf HEAD, so if this lands
> > > > upstream
> > > > > and that happens, would that be soon enough?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If not, then RS LGTM on landing this locally, but be sure that the
patch
> > > that
> > > > > lands on that other CL includes this change and reverts the local
patch
> > > you're
> > > > > adding.
> > > > 
> > > > Asked in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=673488 .
> > > 
> > > OK, seems like it can wait a few days.
> > 
> > It was just merged upstream, so let's wait for the roll. I'll delete this
> issue
> > when that happens.
> 
> It seems like the attempt to pull a new HEAD has stalled due to the build
> breaking (3x...) after checkins after green tryruns.
> 
> Any interest in trying to push a new roll through?  Or should we give up and
> land this?

Oh I completely forgot about this one. I think we should submit this, and then
think about rolling to new HEAD.

[xyzzyz, 2017-02-15 20:47:58]

The CQ bit was checked by xyzzyz@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-15 20:49:21]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-15 21:35:09]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-15 21:35:10]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  ios-device on master.tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios-device/builds...)

[Peter Kasting, 2017-02-16 00:06:28]

On 2017/02/15 20:47:45, xyzzyz wrote:
> Oh I completely forgot about this one. I think we should submit this, and then
> think about rolling to new HEAD.

OK with me.  You have my signoff whenever (this may not even need a rebase to
land, I dunno)

[xyzzyz, 2017-02-16 00:09:22]

The CQ bit was checked by xyzzyz@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-16 00:10:17]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-16 02:14:42]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-16 02:14:42]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no
build URL)

[xyzzyz, 2017-02-16 19:58:46]

On 2017/02/16 00:06:28, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On 2017/02/15 20:47:45, xyzzyz wrote:
> > Oh I completely forgot about this one. I think we should submit this, and
then
> > think about rolling to new HEAD.
> 
> OK with me.  You have my signoff whenever (this may not even need a rebase to
> land, I dunno)

It looks like there's something wrong with linux_chromium trybots, let me
reupload a patch, maybe it will fix the problem.

[xyzzyz, 2017-02-17 19:54:43]

The CQ bit was checked by xyzzyz@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-17 19:55:41]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[xyzzyz, 2017-02-17 19:56:25]

The CQ bit was checked by xyzzyz@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-17 19:57:14]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-17 20:36:39]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-17 20:36:40]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromeos_amd64-generic_chromium_compile_only_ng on
master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromeos_amd64-...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[Peter Kasting, 2017-08-29 04:14:12]

Closing; we pulled a new upstream since this landed