Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:41:25 +0800 | From | Chen Gang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fs/befs/linuxvfs.c: need signed cast for variable 'block' |
| |
On 11/01/2013 04:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:08:33PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:53:59AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >>> >>>> If block (type sector_t) is unsigned, we shouldn't cast it signed. >>>> This entire code path should be removed. What is BEFS's expected >>>> maximum block size? (Looks like even befs_blocknr_t is u64, so nothing >>>> seems trivially in danger of wrapping.) I would also note that all the >>>> format strings are wrong too (%ld instead of %lu). >>> >>> FWIW, this >>> res = befs_fblock2brun(sb, ds, block, &run); >>> if (res != BEFS_OK) { >>> befs_error(sb, >>> "<--- befs_get_block() for inode %lu, block " >>> "%ld ERROR", inode->i_ino, block); >>> return -EFBIG; >>> } >>> also looks wrong - ioctl(..., FIBMAP, ...) shouldn't be able to spew >>> printks on a valid fs and hitting it with block number greater than >>> file length will, AFAICS, trigger that. >>> >>> I agree that this code needs fixing, but just making gcc STFU about the >>> comparison would only serve to hide the problem. Anybody familiar with >>> befs or willing to learn it? >> >> Agreed. MAINTAINERS shows it as orphaned. Perhaps it should be moved >> into staging? > > Only if we want to delete the thing. I'll be glad to take it there, and > remove it in 2 releases and then if anyone complains, we can add it back > easily. Just let me know. >
Excuse me, I am not quite familiar with BEFS, I guess your meaning is:
"if it is no further more discussion (e.g. within 1 week, no members reply), you will remove it (take it to "drivers/staging" sub-directory)".
If what I guess is correct, I support you (else, please let me know)
Thanks. -- Chen Gang
|  |