Re: [PATCH 0/1] fix regression in hugetlbfs overflow checking

2018-03-29 Thread Mike Kravetz
On 03/28/2018 09:16 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote: > Commit 63489f8e8211 ("hugetlbfs: check for pgoff value overflow") > introduced a regression in 32 bit kernels. When creating the mask > to check vm_pgoff, it incorrectly specified that the size of a loff_t > was the size of a long. This prevents

Re: [PATCH 0/1] fix regression in hugetlbfs overflow checking

2018-03-29 Thread Mike Kravetz
On 03/28/2018 09:16 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote: > Commit 63489f8e8211 ("hugetlbfs: check for pgoff value overflow") > introduced a regression in 32 bit kernels. When creating the mask > to check vm_pgoff, it incorrectly specified that the size of a loff_t > was the size of a long. This prevents

[PATCH 0/1] fix regression in hugetlbfs overflow checking

2018-03-28 Thread Mike Kravetz
Commit 63489f8e8211 ("hugetlbfs: check for pgoff value overflow") introduced a regression in 32 bit kernels. When creating the mask to check vm_pgoff, it incorrectly specified that the size of a loff_t was the size of a long. This prevents mapping hugetlbfs files at offsets greater than 4GB on

[PATCH 0/1] fix regression in hugetlbfs overflow checking

2018-03-28 Thread Mike Kravetz
Commit 63489f8e8211 ("hugetlbfs: check for pgoff value overflow") introduced a regression in 32 bit kernels. When creating the mask to check vm_pgoff, it incorrectly specified that the size of a loff_t was the size of a long. This prevents mapping hugetlbfs files at offsets greater than 4GB on