Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1426974
| From | Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [patch] ext4: underflow in alignment check |
| Date | 2016-06-20 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rMdwt-44L-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rKzB7-5e9-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rMa5z-24j-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:02:04PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 16-06-16 10:07:09, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > My static checker complains that this can underflow if arg is negative > > which is true. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> > > How come? (1 << 30) fits even into 32-bit signed type. So where's the > problem? Bad changelog... I was talking about a different issue. I was casting it to unsigned to take advantage of type promototion. Assume we have: int arg = 1 << 31; (arg > (1 << 30)) // <-- this is false (arg > (1U << 30)) // <-- this is true so there is no underflow. regards, dan carpenter
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[patch] ext4: underflow in alignment check Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-06-16 09:10 +0200
Re: [patch] ext4: underflow in alignment check Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2016-06-20 18:20 +0200
Re: [patch] ext4: underflow in alignment check Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-06-20 22:00 +0200
Re: [patch] ext4: underflow in alignment check Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> - 2016-06-21 09:50 +0200
Re: [patch] ext4: underflow in alignment check Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-06-21 15:10 +0200
csiph-web