From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Dec 11 21:55:10 2019 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 082261E163F for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:55:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (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 47Y9hX5RfPz3C3v for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:55:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBBLt1Jr018035 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 23:55:04 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua xBBLt1Jr018035 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id xBBLt14K018032; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 23:55:01 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 23:55:01 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Eric van Gyzen Cc: freebsd-current Subject: Re: ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow? Message-ID: <20191211215501.GV2744@kib.kiev.ua> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on tom.home X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47Y9hX5RfPz3C3v X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 2001:470:d5e7:1::1 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of kostikbel@gmail.com) smtp.mailfrom=kostikbel@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.00 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[gmail.com : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all]; IP_SCORE_FREEMAIL(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; IP_SCORE(0.00)[ip: (-2.83), ipnet: 2001:470::/32(-4.65), asn: 6939(-3.54), country: US(-0.05)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; 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: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:55:10 -0000 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. In fact, the ino value is initialized from 32bit struct ufid ufid_ino, so Coverity could understand that and shut down the warning for formal reasons.