[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180131060253.Horde.vxLJv9n9JFz_lxqApXvdkZX@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 06:02:53 -0600
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
"Yan, Zheng" <zyan@...hat.com>, Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ceph Development <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libceph: use 64-bit arithmetic instead of 32-bit
Hello Ilya,
Quoting Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
>> Cast objsetno to u64 in order to give the compiler complete
>> information about the proper arithmetic to use. Notice
>> that this variable is used in a context that expects an
>> expression of type u64 (64 bits, unsigned).
>>
>> The expression objsetno * sc + stripepos is currently
>> being evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic.
>>
>> In general, the use of incorrect arithmetic has security
>> implications.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 200686
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
>> ---
>> net/ceph/osdmap.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ceph/osdmap.c b/net/ceph/osdmap.c
>> index 0da27c6..58dc965 100644
>> --- a/net/ceph/osdmap.c
>> +++ b/net/ceph/osdmap.c
>> @@ -2183,7 +2183,7 @@ int ceph_calc_file_object_mapping(struct
>> ceph_file_layout *layout,
>> stripepos = bl % sc;
>> objsetno = stripeno / su_per_object;
>>
>> - *ono = objsetno * sc + stripepos;
>> + *ono = (u64)objsetno * sc + stripepos;
>> dout("objset %u * sc %u = ono %u\n", objsetno, sc,
>> (unsigned int)*ono);
>>
>> /* *oxoff = *off % layout->fl_stripe_unit; # offset in su */
>
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> This (and other u32/u64 issues in this function, is this the only
> warning?) is fixed in my striping v2 work branch. I wasn't going to
> push that patch separately, but I guess I should post it.
>
Yeah, this was the only one warning reported by Coverity in this
particular module.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists