[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160620195325.GM32247@mwanda>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 22:53:26 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] ext4: underflow in alignment check
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:02:04PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 16-06-16 10:07:09, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > My static checker complains that this can underflow if arg is negative
> > which is true.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>
> How come? (1 << 30) fits even into 32-bit signed type. So where's the
> problem?
Bad changelog... I was talking about a different issue. I was casting
it to unsigned to take advantage of type promototion. Assume we have:
int arg = 1 << 31;
(arg > (1 << 30)) // <-- this is false
(arg > (1U << 30)) // <-- this is true so there is no underflow.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists