Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:44:00 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: green@linuxhacker.ru, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        Dmitry Eremin <dmitry.eremin@intel.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] staging/lustre: fix comparison between signed and
 unsigned
Message-ID: <20150202154400.GB18209@kroah.com>
References: <1422845539-26742-1-git-send-email-green@linuxhacker.ru>
 <1422845539-26742-7-git-send-email-green@linuxhacker.ru>
 <20150202130231.GA5451@mwanda>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150202130231.GA5451@mwanda>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1079
Lines: 31

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:02:31PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 09:52:05PM -0500, green@linuxhacker.ru wrote:
> > From: Dmitry Eremin <dmitry.eremin@intel.com>
> > 
> > Expression if (size != (ssize_t)size) is always false.
> > Therefore no bounds check errors detected.
> 
> The original code actually worked as designed.  The integer overflow
> could only happen on 32 bit systems and the test only was true for 32
> bit systems.
> 
> > -	if (size != (ssize_t)size)
> > +	if (size > ~((size_t)0)>>1)
> >  		return -1;
> 
> The problem is that the code was unclear.  I think the new code is even
> more complicated to look at.

I agree, I don't even understand what the new code is doing.

What is this code supposed to be protecting from?  And -1?  That should
never be a return value...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/