Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210429130510.1621665-1-jackmanb@google.com> <CAEf4BzY7sx0gW=o5rM8WDzW1J0U_Yep3MMuJScoMg-hBAeBPCg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzY7sx0gW=o5rM8WDzW1J0U_Yep3MMuJScoMg-hBAeBPCg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 14:01:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+i-1C2+Lt7kmwsZOEw6D8B_Lc+aJdZoUmPDh08+7y_uMNW+kA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] libbpf: Fix signed overflow in ringbuf_process_ring
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 18:31, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 6:05 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:

> > Note: I feel a bit guilty about the fact that this makes the reader
> > think about implicit conversions. Nobody likes thinking about that.
> >
> > But explicit casts don't really help with clarity:
> >
> >   return (int)min(cnt, (int64_t)INT_MAX); // ugh
> >
>
> I'd go with
>
> if (cnt > INT_MAX)
>     return INT_MAX;
>
> return cnt;

Sure, it has all the same implicit casts/promotions but I guess it's
clearer anyway.

> If you don't mind, I can patch it up while applying?

Yes please do, thanks!