A quick question about this part of the patch:
> + uint64_t end = start + len - 1;
> + if (end >= i_size_read(bdev->bd_inode))
return -EINVAL;
> + /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages */
> + mapping = bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping;
> + truncate_inode_pages_range(mapping, start, end);
blk_ioctl_zeroout accepts unsigned values for start and end (uint64_t) but
loff_t types are turned from i_size_read() and passed as the 2nd and 3rd values
to truncate_inode_pages_range() and loff_t is a signed value. It should be
possible to pass in some values would overflow the calculation of end causing
the test on the value of end and the result of i_size_read to pass but then end
up passing a large unsigned value for in start that would be implicitly
converted to signed in truncate_inode_pages_range. I was wondering if you'd
tested passing in data that would cause sign conversion issues when passed into
truncate_inode_pages_range (does it handle it gracefully?) or should this code:
if (start & 511)
return -EINVAL;
if (len & 511)
return -EINVAL;
be something more like this (for better sanity checking of your arguments)
which will ensure that you don't have implicit conversion issues from unsigned
to signed and ensure that the result of adding them together won't either:
if ((start & 511) || (start > (uint64_t)LLONG_MAX))
return -EINVAL;
if ((len & 511) ) || (len > (uint64_t)LLONG_MAX))
return -EINVAL;
if (end > (uint64_t)LLONG_MAX)
return -EINVAL;
My apologies in advance if I've made a mistake when looking at this and my
concerns about unsigned values being implicitly converted to signed are
unfounded (I would have hoped for compiler warnings about any implicit
conversions though).
Thanks
Shane
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
