[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <478F5395.9040203@bull.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:09:41 +0100
From: Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix oops in mballoc caused by a variable overflow
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
>> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start << bsbits;
>>>
>> Hi Aneesh,
>> your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
>> loff_t, start_off = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical << bsbits also overflows.
>>
>
> loff_t is 64 bits.
>
> typedef __kernel_loff_t loff_t;
> typedef long long __kernel_loff_t;
> typedef __u32 ext4_lblk_t;
> typedef unsigned long long ext4_fsblk_t
>
> start_off = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical << bsbits;
>
> In the above line what we are storing in start_off is the offset in bytes.So it makes
> sense to use the type loff_t. It is neither logical block nor physical block.
Oh yes, sorry, you're right. I read too quickly.
In fact, it's missing a cast :
start_off = (loff_t) ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical << bsbits;
With that change, the test is ok.
Valérie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists