On Mon, Mar 26 2018 at 2:16pm -0400, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22 2018 at 5:13pm -0400, > Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 03/22/2018 08:41 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > >On Thu, Mar 22 2018 at 1:21pm -0400, > > >Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >>This v2 addresses Mikulas' point about the variable range and folds in > > >>"[PATCH] dm raid: use __within_range() more in parse_raid_params()": > > >> > > >>parse_raid_parames() compared variable "int value" with > > >>INT_MAX to prevent overflow of mddev variables set. > > >> > > >>Change type to "long long value". > > >Can you elaborate on the risk/issue that is being fixed here? > > > > Fix addresses a coverity finding supporting the full, > > positive range of the "struct mddev" int members > > set here. I.e. the "int" cast is compared with INT_MAX. > > Can you cut and paste the relevant portions of the coverity report? I've dropped this patch for now. Until I get more insight on what the problem is I'm not appreciating why changing to a larger data type is the right way forward (especially if MD is just using int anyway). Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
