On Feb 20, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Hm this raises a few questions I think. > > On the one hand, making sure the kmalloc arg doesn't overflow here is > certainly a good thing and probably the right thing to do in the short term. > > So I guess: > > Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > for that, to close the hole. Another possibility is to wait for knalloc/kmalloc_array in the -mm tree, which is basically the non-zeroing version of kcalloc that performs overflow checking. > Doesn't this also mean that a valid s_log_groups_per_flex (i.e. 31) > will fail in this resize code? That would be an unexpected outcome. > 2^31 groups per flex is a little crazy, but still technically valid > according to the limits in the code. Or we could limit s_log_groups_per_flex/groups_per_flex to a reasonable upper bound in ext4_fill_flex_info(), right? - xi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
