On 05.05.2014 11:36, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 04.05.2014 um 05:31 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
If the very first allocation has a length of 0, the free_cluster_index
is still 0 after the for loop, which means that subtracting one from it
will underflow and signal an invalid range of clusters by return
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 05:31:40AM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> If the very first allocation has a length of 0, the free_cluster_index
> is still 0 after the for loop, which means that subtracting one from it
> will underflow and signal an invalid range of clusters by returning
> -EFBIG. However, ther
Am 04.05.2014 um 05:31 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> If the very first allocation has a length of 0, the free_cluster_index
> is still 0 after the for loop, which means that subtracting one from it
> will underflow and signal an invalid range of clusters by returning
> -EFBIG. However, there is no s
If the very first allocation has a length of 0, the free_cluster_index
is still 0 after the for loop, which means that subtracting one from it
will underflow and signal an invalid range of clusters by returning
-EFBIG. However, there is no such range, as its length is 0.
Fix this by preventing und
