linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next] befs: befs_fill

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <511A84E8.5090309@canonical.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:07:36 -0700
From:	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] befs: befs_fill_super(): remove unreachable
 code

On 02/12/2013 10:46 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com> writes:
> 
>> befs_sb->num_blocks is of base type u64 which is the same as sector_t.
>> Therefore, num_blocks can never be larger then the maximum
>> value of sector_t.
> 
> The analysys is wrong.  On 32bit with CONFIG_LBAF unset sector_t is an
> unsigned long aka a u32, while befs_off_t is always a u64.
> 
> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>

Dang - you're right.

-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@...onical.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/