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: <20210913131113.390368911@linuxfoundation.org> <20210913131114.028340332@linuxfoundation.org>
 <CA+G9fYtdPnwf+fi4Oyxng65pWjW9ujZ7dd2Z-EEEHyJimNHN6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YT+RKemKfg6GFq0S@kroah.com> <CAKwvOdmOAKTkgFK4Oke1SFGR_NxNqXe-buj1uyDgwZ4JdnP2Vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOdmCS5Q7AzUL5nziYVU7RrtRjoE9JjOXfVBWagO1Bzbsew@mail.gmail.com> <CA+icZUVuRaMs=bx775gDF88_xzy8LFkBA5xaK21hFDeYvgo12A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+icZUVuRaMs=bx775gDF88_xzy8LFkBA5xaK21hFDeYvgo12A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 13:02:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmN3nQe8aL=jUwi0nGXzYQGic=NA2o40Q=yeHeafSsS3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.14 018/334] nbd: add the check to prevent overflow in __nbd_ioctl()
To:     sedat.dilek@gmail.com
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:57 PM Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:53 PM 'Nick Desaulniers' via Clang Built
> Linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:39 AM Nick Desaulniers
> > <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There's an issue with my alternative approach
> > > (https://gist.github.com/nickdesaulniers/2479818f4983bbf2d688cebbab435863)
> > > with declaring the local variable z in div_64() since either operand
> > > could be 64b, which result in an unwanted truncation if the dividend
> > > is 32b (or less, and divisor is 64b). I think (what I realized this
> > > weekend) is that we might be able to replace the `if` with
> > > `__builtin_choose_expr`, then have that whole expression be the final
> > > statement and thus the "return value" of the statement expression.
> >
> > Christ...that...works? Though, did Linus just merge my patches for gcc 5.1?
> >
>
> "Merge branch 'gcc-min-version-5.1' (make gcc-5.1 the minimum version)"

Ha! I pulled+rebased and this code disappeared...I thought I had
rebased on the wrong branch or committed work to master accidentally.
Patch to stable-only inbound.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers