From: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: rquota overflow fix never applied ?
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:42:46 +1000
Message-ID: <17175.62566.457851.278132@cse.unsw.edu.au>
References: <200508300108.52636.vapier@gentoo.org>
	<17171.63513.738531.932794@cse.unsw.edu.au>
	<1125417920.8443.20.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: message from Trond Myklebust on Tuesday August 30
Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net


(drat ... sent this with the wrong 'from' address first time and
as nfs-utils is a closed list (grumble grumble) it bounced...
)

On Tuesday August 30, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no wrote:
> ty den 30.08.2005 Klokka 16:09 (+1000) skreiv Neil Brown:
> 
> > However I seem to be a bit thick today and cannot see where the
> > overflow is happening.
> > dqblk is 6 u_int32_t's and 2 time_t's
> 
> Isn't time_t defined to be unsigned long?
> 
> > struct rquota (after rq_bhardlimit) is 8 u_int's
> 
> Whether or not it fixes the particular problem it claims to, this is a
> patch we should apply (or we should write something similar).

True, and I have now committed it to CVS.
It's just that I like to make sure that I understand a problem
completely before 'fixing' it - it is very easy to miss little details
(though I cannot see any room for hidden details here).

NeilBrown


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs