lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20191023194605.GA7630@mit.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:46:05 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix signed vs unsigned comparison in ext4_valid_extent() On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:43:33AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:15:46AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:44:47PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > > > This patch can't be fixing anything because the comparison is unsigned both > > > before and after this patch. > > > > Thanks, you're right; I had forgotten C's signed/unsigned rules for > > addition. The funny thing is the original reporter of BZ #205197 > > reported that the problem went away he tried a similar patch. > > Not trying to stick my nose in too much here but: > > What does it mean if ext4_ext_get_actual_len() to return < 0? It's not possible for it to return < 0. We probably should clean it up to make it return an unsigned int, but that's a longer-term clean-up. - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists