The trouble here is porting the maximalist disaster of one scenario to another scenario simply because the same phrase is used to describe them. Because a buff

The trouble here is porting the maximalist disaster of one scenario to another scenario simply because the same phrase is used to describe them. Because a buffer overflow may lead to arbitrary control flow escape via ROP or other hijacking of the instruction pointer, it does not follow that e.g. signed overflow is similarly dangerous. Signed overflow, if not guarded against, may enable buffer overflow, but the deeper irony is that detecting when signed overflow has already occurred is close to impossible if the compiler is also aware that the check implies that it has occurred. Thus, code designed for safety, guarding against buffer overflows by detecting signed overflow, ends up not protecting against buffer overflow, simply because signed overflow is described using the same name as buffer overflow.