[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180224084516.pex3ogxzipzj2o5y@mwanda>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:45:16 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/test_kmod: Fix an integer overflow test
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 02:59:41AM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 01:27:54PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The main problem is that the parentheses are in the wrong place and the
> > unlikely() call returns either 0 or 1 so it's never less than zero.
>
> Doh, thanks, yes. Seems worth considering a grammar rule for it.
>
> > The other problem is that signed integer overflows like "INT_MAX + 1" are
> > undefined behavior.
>
> Likewise.
>
> This seems like another possible generic typo issue. But I would not resolve it
> the way you did, in this particular case below num_test_devs represents the
> number of already registered devs, before we increment. So the way to resolve
> this would be:
>
> if (num_test_devs + 1 == INT_MAX)
>
> I'll get this upstream, thanks!
There is no issue if num_test_devs is INT_MAX. But capping it at
INT_MAX - 1 is also fine.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists