On (22/11/11 09:37), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (22/11/10 08:47), coverity-bot wrote:
> [..]
> > 1704 class_index_old = zs_lookup_class_index(zram->mem_pool, comp_len_old);
> > 1705 /*
> > 1706 * Iterate the secondary comp algorithms list (in order of priority)
> > 1707 * and try to recompress the page.
> > 1708 */
> > 1709 for (; prio < prio_max; prio++) {
> > vvv CID 1527270: (OVERRUN)
> > vvv Overrunning array "zram->comps" of 4 8-byte elements at element index 4 (byte offset 39) using index "prio" (which evaluates to 4).
> > 1710 if (!zram->comps[prio])
> > 1711 continue;
> > 1712
> > 1713 /*
> > 1714 * Skip if the object is already re-compressed with a higher
> > 1715 * priority algorithm (or same algorithm).
>
> prio_max is always limited and max value it can have is 4 (ZRAM_MAX_COMPS).
> Depending on use case we can limit prio_max even to lower values.
>
> So we have
>
> for (; prio < 4; prio++) {
> foo = comps[prio];
> }
>
> I don't see how prio can be 4 inside of this loop.
Kees, if we do something like this will it make coverity happy?
---
diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
index 9d33801e8ba8..e67a124f2e88 100644
--- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
@@ -1706,6 +1706,7 @@ static int zram_recompress(struct zram *zram, u32 index, struct page *page,
* Iterate the secondary comp algorithms list (in order of priority)
* and try to recompress the page.
*/
+ prio_max = min(prio_max, ZRAM_MAX_COMPS);
for (; prio < prio_max; prio++) {
if (!zram->comps[prio])
continue;
