From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Jan 10 16:40:43 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFCC1EBF15 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:40:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@vangyzen.net) Received: from smtp.vangyzen.net (hotblack.vangyzen.net [199.48.133.146]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47vTHt1WYyz3JXM for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:40:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@vangyzen.net) Received: from disco.vangyzen.net (unknown [70.97.188.230]) by smtp.vangyzen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EB1156468; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:40:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow? To: Konstantin Belousov Cc: freebsd-current References: <20191211215501.GV2744@kib.kiev.ua> From: Eric van Gyzen Message-ID: <29bccb62-bdd9-3e54-0f30-94f211cd569e@vangyzen.net> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:40:30 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191211215501.GV2744@kib.kiev.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47vTHt1WYyz3JXM X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eric@vangyzen.net designates 199.48.133.146 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=eric@vangyzen.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.39 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[vangyzen.net]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; IP_SCORE(-3.09)[ip: (-7.99), ipnet: 199.48.132.0/22(-3.60), asn: 36236(-3.83), country: US(-0.05)]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36236, ipnet:199.48.132.0/22, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:40:43 -0000 On 12/11/19 3:55 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:26:41AM -0600, Eric van Gyzen wrote: >> Since ino64 went in, Coverity complains that the two "ino >= foo" >> comparisons in ffs_fhtovp() compare a 64-bit value to a 32-bit. Is this >> a problem in practice? > > I do not think that this a problem, and Coverity could be a bit smarter > there. > > The ino variable is 64bit, but why is it worrysome to compare it with a > 32 bit value ? We want to limit the value to the max possible inode > number but still keep it type-correct. I incorrectly thought that UFS supported 64-bit inodes. Thanks for correcting me, Kostik. Eric