Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>