linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] trace: osnoise: Fix u64 less than zero comparison

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

Date:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:55:14 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] trace: osnoise: Fix u64 less than zero comparison

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 06:21:32PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 29/06/2021 18:19, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > On 6/29/21 6:52 PM, Colin King wrote:
> >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >>
> >> The less than zero comparison of the u64 variable 'noise' is always
> >> false because the variable is unsigned. Since the time_sub macro
> >> can potentially return an -ve vale, make the variable a s64 to
> >> fix the issue.
> > 
> > Ops! concurrent bug fixing.
> 
> Well, shows static analysis is doing it's thing and I'm not being
> vigilant enough by spotting that Dan found it earlier :-)

Nah.  I don't normally CC kernel-janitors on bug reports.  I sometimes
do on netdev stuff because Dave told me ten years ago that static
analysis noise on the list was an annoying thing.  And actually on that
one I didn't CC anyone actually, Oops.

regards,
dan carpenter