List_New checks against PY_SIZE_MAX. The upper bound of PyMem_Malloc is PY_SSIZE_T_MAX.Instead of simply changing the constant, another method is delegating overflow check to PyMem_Calloc, so we can avoid the check in unnecessary check in PyMem_Malloc. But I am not sure hiding the check in PyMem_Calloc is a good idea or not.

It looks like PyMem_RESIZE() would be a truer equivalent than PyMem_Calloc(), since PyMem_MALLOC() does not initialize the memory. I would be happy with changing to that if you want.PyMem_Malloc() has been limited to PY_SSIZE_T_MAX sinceIssue 2620, although the documentation <https://docs.python.org/3.5/c-api/memory.html#c.PyMem_Malloc> only mentions “size_t”. There is no match for “ssize_t” etc anywhere on that page.

Thanks for your replies.I update the patch with PyMem_Calloc. I think it's better than PyMem_Resize since we need to initialize the memory here, there is a memset(op->ob_item, 0, nbytes) below.

Mark, this is your code.  Care to comment?

Add another PY_SIZE_MAX replacement I suggest in listobject.c.

The change to use PyMem_Calloc looks good to me.

Also, if you're switching to `PyMem_Calloc`, I'd suggest dropping the assertion at the end, since that's now really an assertion for logic that appears in `PyMem_Calloc` rather than in this function.

Thanks for your reply Mark. But I don't understand your message about the assertion. There is now no assertion in PyList_New. The changed assertion statement is in list_ass_subscript. If this confuses you I am quite sorry to bring in a somewhat unrelated change. :( I just thought it's not worth to open another issue to change that one. Really sorry.

Right, sorry. I'm suggesting dropping that second assertion entirely; essentially, we're moving the responsibility for and knowledge about overflow checking into the PyMem_* functions/macros (which is where it belongs), and I don't see a need to check the equivalent condition in list_ass_subscript.If you do keep the second assertion, you should probably drop the `(size_t)` cast, so that we're not comparing signed with unsigned.

There's also still a use of PY_SIZE_MAX in the list_resize function. Would it be worth fixing that one too?

Just remove it. Regenerate the patch. As for list_resize, I have already fired anotherissue27660.

LGTM. Thanks!I'll apply this later today, unless someone beats me to it.

New changesetcd3d079ad2b5 by Mark Dickinson in branch 'default':Issue#27662: don't use PY_SIZE_MAX for overflow checking in List_New. Patch by Xiang Zhang.https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/cd3d079ad2b5

List_New_Calloc_v2.patch applied. Thanks!

New changesetc7f9e66826a0 by Mark Dickinson in branch 'default':Issue#27662: add missingMisc/NEWS entry.https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/c7f9e66826a0