Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 03:57:29 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Chagin Dmitry <dchagin@freebsd.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r316393 - head/sys/compat/linux Message-ID: <20170403035157.X3216@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20170402163306.GA44865@mordor.heemeyer.club> References: <201704020746.v327kDSN042840@repo.freebsd.org> <20170402133651.GJ43712@kib.kiev.ua> <20170402163306.GA44865@mordor.heemeyer.club>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017, Chagin Dmitry wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 04:36:51PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 07:46:13AM +0000, Dmitry Chagin wrote: >>> Author: dchagin >>> Date: Sun Apr 2 07:46:13 2017 >>> New Revision: 316393 >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/316393 >>> >>> Log: >>> As noted by bde@ negative tv_sec values are not checked for overflow, >>> so overflow can still occur. Fix that. Also remove the extra check for >>> tv_sec size as under COMPAT_LINUX32 it is always true. >>> >>> Pointed out by: bde@ >>> >>> MFC after: 1 week >>> >>> Modified: >>> head/sys/compat/linux/linux_time.c >>> >>> Modified: head/sys/compat/linux/linux_time.c >>> ============================================================================== >>> --- head/sys/compat/linux/linux_time.c Sun Apr 2 07:11:15 2017 (r316392) >>> +++ head/sys/compat/linux/linux_time.c Sun Apr 2 07:46:13 2017 (r316393) >>> @@ -125,8 +125,7 @@ native_to_linux_timespec(struct l_timesp >>> >>> LIN_SDT_PROBE2(time, native_to_linux_timespec, entry, ltp, ntp); >>> #ifdef COMPAT_LINUX32 >>> - if (ntp->tv_sec > INT_MAX && >>> - sizeof(ltp->tv_sec) != sizeof(ntp->tv_sec)) >>> + if (ntp->tv_sec > INT_MAX || ntp->tv_sec < INT_MIN) >> This line reads as only tv_sec == INT_MAX case results in non-EOVERFLOW >> condition. >> > > should I rewrite it like: > > if (ntp->tv_sec < INT_MIN || ntp->tv_sec > INT_MAX) > ? I don't see the problem. Do you mean that the compiler might remove this code because the check is tautologically false on 32-bit natives, but warn too? The sizeof() comparison is even easier to evaluate at compile time. Perhaps it acted a hint to the compiler to not warn. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170403035157.X3216>