Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:43:33 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix signed vs unsigned comparison in
 ext4_valid_extent()
Message-ID: <20191023184332.GC7689@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
References: <20191023013112.18809-1-tytso@mit.edu>
 <20191023054447.GE361298@sol.localdomain>
 <20191023131546.GB2460@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191023131546.GB2460@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:15:46AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:44:47PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > 
> > This patch can't be fixing anything because the comparison is unsigned both
> > before and after this patch.
> 
> Thanks, you're right; I had forgotten C's signed/unsigned rules for
> addition.  The funny thing is the original reporter of BZ #205197
> reported that the problem went away he tried a similar patch.

Not trying to stick my nose in too much here but:

What does it mean if ext4_ext_get_actual_len() to return < 0?

Ira

> 
> 	      	  	       	    - Ted