Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2811951.1684766430@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <CANT5p=pNFpEj0p+njYw3sVdq9CKgsTdh29Gj6iYDOsMN0ocj1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <2818727.1684779061@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <2818727.1684779061@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
From:   Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 01:45:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH2r5mtXR7xeP79Rit58769r+Q22Cg6ruV7dSPcNOb_=rQ9neA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cifs: Fix cifs_limit_bvec_subset() to correctly check the
 maxmimum size
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com>,
        Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>,
        Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@gmail.com>,
        Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>,
        Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:11=E2=80=AFPM David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>=
 wrote:
>
> Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > +               max_size -=3D len;
> >
> > Shouldn't this decrement happen below, after the span has been
> > compared with max_size?
>
> It probably doesn't matter.  The compiler is free to move it around, but =
yes
> that and ix++ can both be moved down.

I am not sure I follow - can you explain? It looks like moving it up
vs. down would change behavior


--=20
Thanks,

Steve