Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:40:30 -0600 From: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow? Message-ID: <29bccb62-bdd9-3e54-0f30-94f211cd569e@vangyzen.net> In-Reply-To: <20191211215501.GV2744@kib.kiev.ua> References: <abd625ad-7854-e143-425d-e3fc67ea4488@vangyzen.net> <20191211215501.GV2744@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?29bccb62-bdd9-3e54-0f30-94f211cd569e>