Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268759AbUIXOE7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:04:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268766AbUIXOE7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:04:59 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:11744 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268759AbUIXOE6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:04:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:04:08 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Q] possible proc inode numbers overflow? Message-ID: <20040924140408.GF9106@holomorphy.com> References: <41542ADF.5070202@sw.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41542ADF.5070202@sw.ru> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 822 Lines: 26 On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 06:10:39PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > fs/proc/generic.c: > #define PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST 0xF0000000UL > static unsigned int get_inode_number(void) > { > ... > inum = (i & MAX_ID_MASK) + PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST; > > /* inum will never be more than 0xf0ffffff, so no check > * for overflow. > */ > ... > } > is it really correct? Looks like MAX_ID_MASK = 0x7FFFFFFF and > PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST is 0xF0000000. > So at least the comment is wrong? The comment is wrong. Albert Cahalan and I are working on a new fix. -- wli - 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/