On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 08:47:20AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 11:14 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:30:07AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
> >>A quick question about this part of the patch:
> >>
> >>>+ uint64_t end = start + len - 1;
> >>
> >>>+ if (end >=
On 11/10/2015 11:14 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:30:07AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
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;
+
On 11/10/2015 11:14 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:30:07AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
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;
+
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 08:47:20AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 11:14 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:30:07AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
> >>A quick question about this part of the patch:
> >>
> >>>+ uint64_t end = start + len - 1;
> >>
> >>>+ if (end >=
> I don't have a device large enough to test for signedness errors, since
> passing
> huge values for start and len never make it past the i_size_read check.
If you have someone trying to bypass your sanity checks then if
start=18446744073709551104 and len=1024 the result of adding them
> I don't have a device large enough to test for signedness errors, since
> passing
> huge values for start and len never make it past the i_size_read check.
If you have someone trying to bypass your sanity checks then if
start=18446744073709551104 and len=1024 the result of adding them
> which would make the other checks I suggested to ensure that neither start
> or end were more than (uint64_t)LLONG_MAX unnecessary.
My apologies I was wrong about what I said above - after thinking about it for
longer you still need to make sure that at least len is not greater than
> I don't have a device large enough to test for signedness errors, since
> passing
> huge values for start and len never make it past the i_size_read check.
> However, I do see that I forgot to check the padding values, so I'll update
> that.
Then do you want to at least consider converting
> I don't have a device large enough to test for signedness errors, since
> passing
> huge values for start and len never make it past the i_size_read check.
> However, I do see that I forgot to check the padding values, so I'll update
> that.
Then do you want to at least consider converting
> which would make the other checks I suggested to ensure that neither start
> or end were more than (uint64_t)LLONG_MAX unnecessary.
My apologies I was wrong about what I said above - after thinking about it for
longer you still need to make sure that at least len is not greater than
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:30:07AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
> 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
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;
> +
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:30:07AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
> 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
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;
> +
14 matches
Mail list logo
