Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751672AbaFVAyB (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:54:01 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:53336 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751243AbaFVAx7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:53:59 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:53:52 +0100 From: Al Viro To: James Bottomley Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Dave Chinner , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 32-bit bug in iovec iterator changes Message-ID: <20140622005352.GS18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20140619160801.GB4907@thunk.org> <20140619162144.GC4907@thunk.org> <20140619223820.GN4453@dastard> <20140621035144.GA8526@thunk.org> <20140621055306.GP18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140621230922.GA13188@thunk.org> <20140621234913.GQ18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1403395400.2592.4.camel@jarvis.lan> <20140622002618.GR18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1403397164.2177.40.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1403397164.2177.40.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 05:32:44PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > No, we are not. Look: > > * comparison promotes both operands to u64 here, so its result is > > accurate, no matter how large count is. They are compared as natural > > numbers. > > True ... figured this out 10 seconds after sending the email. > > > * assignment converts count to size_t, which *would* truncate for > > values that are greater than the maximal value representable by size_t. > > But in that case it's by definition greater than i->count, so we do not > > reach that assignment at all. > > OK, so what I still don't get is why isn't the compiler warning when we > truncate a u64 to a u32? We should get that warning in your new code, > and we should have got that warning in fs/block_dev.c where it would > have pinpointed the actual problem. In which universe? extern void f(unsigned int); void g(unsigned long x) { f(x); } is perfectly valid C, with no warnings in sight. f(1UL << 32) might give one, but not this... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/