[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1200600436.4134.35.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:07:16 -0800
From: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix oops in mballoc caused by a variable overflow
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 21:59 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks, folded to the mballoc-core patch
Mingming
> -aneesh
-
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