Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-194601-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 20:03:28 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Yuntao Wang <yuntao.wang@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/file: fix the check in find_next_fd()
Message-ID: <20240529190328.GP2118490@ZenIV>
References: <20240529160656.209352-1-yuntao.wang@linux.dev>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240529160656.209352-1-yuntao.wang@linux.dev>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>

On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 12:06:56AM +0800, Yuntao Wang wrote:
> The maximum possible return value of find_next_zero_bit(fdt->full_fds_bits,
> maxbit, bitbit) is maxbit. This return value, multiplied by BITS_PER_LONG,
> gives the value of bitbit, which can never be greater than maxfd, it can
> only be equal to maxfd at most, so the following check 'if (bitbit > maxfd)'
> will never be true.
> 
> Moreover, when bitbit equals maxfd, it indicates that there are no unused
> fds, and the function can directly return.
> 
> Fix this check.

Hmm...  The patch is correct, AFAICS.  I _think_ what happened is that
Linus decided to play it safe around the last word.  In the reality
->max_fds is always a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG, so there's no boundary
effects - a word can not cross the ->max_fds boundary, so "no zero
bits in full_fds_bits under max_fds/BITS_PER_LONG" does mean there's
no point checking in range starting at round_down(max_fds, BITS_PER_LONG).

Perhaps a comment along the lines of

        unsigned int maxfd = fdt->max_fds; // always a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG

would be useful in there...