Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:08:32 +0100 | From | Jan Kara <> | Subject | Re: [patch] udf: potential integer overflow |
| |
On Mon 15-03-10 11:21:13, Dan Carpenter wrote: > bloc->logicalBlockNum is unsigned so it's never less than zero. > > When I saw that, it made me worry that "bloc->logicalBlockNum + count" > could overflow. That's why I changed the check for less than zero > to an overflow check. (The test works because "count" is also > unsigned.) > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> Thanks. Merged.
> --- > GCC 4.1 apparently optimizes overflow checks like this away, but it should > work for other versions of gcc. I tested with GCC 4.3. > http://www.fefe.de/intof.html It should only optimize them out for signed types (moreover kernel has this optimization turned off so it's a non-issue for us anyway).
Honza
-- Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, CR
| |