[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080117162928.GC6667@skywalker>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:59:28 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
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
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:09:41PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> 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.
Updated patch below.
-aneesh
View attachment "overflow-fix.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (2740 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists