[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160621074353.GB3750@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:43:53 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 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 20-06-16 22:53:26, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
I see, but match_int() - or more precisely match_number() returns -ERANGE
when the number is > INT_MAX, subsequently we check whether the number is <
0 (Opt_inode_readahead_blks has flag MOPT_GTE0 set) and bail out if yes. So
at the place you are modifying we are sure the number is in [0, INT_MAX].
So the condition (arg > (1 << 30)) is pointless - just defensive
programming in case we decide e.g. to upgrade the type of 'arg' to long - but
not wrong...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists