linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] writeback: fix call of incorrect macro

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]

Message-ID: <df995d93-4b31-fa61-a7ae-db33fd058412@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:31:03 +0300
From:   Maxim Korotkov <korotkov.maxim.s@...il.com>
To:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: fix call of incorrect macro

Hi,
Will this patch be applied or rejected?
best regards, Max

On 26.01.2023 16:52, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 19-01-23 13:44:43, Maxim Korotkov wrote:
>>   the variable 'history' is of type u16, it may be an error
>>   that the hweight32 macro was used for it
>>   I guess macro hweight16 should be used
>>
>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>>
>> Fixes: 2a81490811d0 ("writeback: implement foreign cgroup inode detection")
>> Signed-off-by: Maxim Korotkov <korotkov.maxim.s@...il.com>
> 
> Looks good to me, although it is mostly a theoretical issue - I don't see
> how hweight32 could do any harm here. Anyway, feel free to add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> 
> 								Honza
> 
>> ---
>>   fs/fs-writeback.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> index 6fba5a52127b..fc16123b2405 100644
>> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> @@ -829,7 +829,7 @@ void wbc_detach_inode(struct writeback_control *wbc)
>>   		 * is okay.  The main goal is avoiding keeping an inode on
>>   		 * the wrong wb for an extended period of time.
>>   		 */
>> -		if (hweight32(history) > WB_FRN_HIST_THR_SLOTS)
>> +		if (hweight16(history) > WB_FRN_HIST_THR_SLOTS)
>>   			inode_switch_wbs(inode, max_id);
>>   	}
>>   
>> -- 
>> 2.37.2
>>