linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] ext4: fix two cases where a u32 is being checked for a less than zero error return

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20190511020930.GG2534@mit.edu>
Date:   Fri, 10 May 2019 22:09:30 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ext4: fix two cases where a u32 is being checked
 for a less than zero error return

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:09:08PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> There are two cases where u32 variables n and err are being checked
> for less than zero error values, the checks is always false because
> the variables are not signed. Fix this by making the variables ints.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unsigned compared against 0")
> Fixes: 345c0dbf3a30 ("ext4: protect journal inode's blocks using block_validity")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>

Thanks, applied.

					- Ted