On Aug 24, 2020, at 9:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox <wi...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:27:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> do {
>>> - unsigned offset, bytes;
>>> -
>>> - offset = offset_in_page(pos);
>>> - bytes = min_t(loff_t, PAGE_SIZE - offset, count);
>>> + loff_t bytes;
>>>
>>> if (IS_DAX(inode))
>>> - status = dax_iomap_zero(pos, offset, bytes, iomap);
>>> + bytes = dax_iomap_zero(pos, length, iomap);
>>
>> Hmmm. everything is loff_t here, but the callers are defining length
>> as u64, not loff_t. Is there a potential sign conversion problem
>> here? (sure 64 bit is way beyond anything we'll pass here, but...)
>
> I've gone back and forth on the correct type for 'length' a few times.
> size_t is too small (not for zeroing, but for seek()). An unsigned type
> seems right -- a length can't be negative, and we don't want to give
> the impression that it can. But the return value from these functions
> definitely needs to be signed so we can represent an error. So a u64
> length with an loff_t return type feels like the best solution. And
> the upper layers have to promise not to pass in a length that's more
> than 2^63-1.The problem with allowing a u64 as the length is that it leads to the possibility of an argument value that cannot be returned. Checking length < 0 is not worse than checking length > 0x7ffffffffffffff, and has the benefit of consistency with the other argument types and signs... Cheers, Andreas
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
