Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752347AbYLCOde (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:33:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751121AbYLCOdY (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:33:24 -0500 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:55219 "EHLO partygirl.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750845AbYLCOdX (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:33:23 -0500 Message-ID: <49369872.20406@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:32:18 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen Organization: TMR Associates Inc, Schenectady NY User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.18) Gecko/20081112 Fedora/1.1.13-1.fc9 pango-text SeaMonkey/1.1.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: roel kluin , tytso@mit.edu, adilger@sun.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext3, ext4: do_split() fix loop, with obvious unsigned wrap References: <49343AD9.4020606@gmail.com> <20081202220510.ddef1115.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20081202220510.ddef1115.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1465 Lines: 43 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:28:25 -0500 roel kluin wrote: > > >> Fix loop, with obvious unsigned wrap >> >> > > Please raise separate patches for ext3 and ext4 - their paths into the > tree are different. > > >> --- a/fs/ext3/namei.c >> +++ b/fs/ext3/namei.c >> @@ -1188,7 +1188,7 @@ static struct ext3_dir_entry_2 *do_split(handle_t *handle, struct inode *dir, >> /* Split the existing block in the middle, size-wise */ >> size = 0; >> move = 0; >> - for (i = count-1; i >= 0; i--) { >> + for (i = count; i--; ) { >> > > So we're replacing an accidental for(;;) with something which can > really terminate. This is potentially a functional change, and it's > perhaps telling us that we should replace it with a real for (;;) loop > anyway. > It's not a "for (;;)" loop, because the index value does change, but clearly in the current implementation the termination condition won't be met by any index value. You still need to bail on index value, and the index is used in the loop. -- Bill Davidsen "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark -- 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/