64 bit value / 4 = 62 bit value, right? Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 07:51:26AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 08:06:35PM +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote: >> > count = n / sizeof(int); >> > - if (count > LIRCBUF_SIZE || count % 2 == 0) >> > + if (count > LIRCBUF_SIZE || count % 2 == 0 || n % sizeof(int) != 0) >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Wait, what? We just checked this a couple lines before. > >Bah. I'd only looked at the diff, which didn't have enough context. I >thought that looked familiar. Indeed, this part seems to be unnecessary. > >> The rest of the patch is right and a clever catch. It would affect >> x86_64 systems and not i386. This doesn't have security implications >> does it? You'd just catch the kmalloc() stack trace for insanely large >> allocations. > >Even on x86_64, it looks to my (relatively untrained) eye like you'd >actually be fine. n is a size_t (so, 64-bit on x86_64). count is an int >(so 32-bit on x86_64). We initialize count to some 64-bit value / 4, so >at most, 16 bits, which always fits just fine in the 32-bit int, no? > >-- >Jarod Wilson >jarod@xxxxxxxxxx > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in >the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ÿô.nlj·Ÿ®‰†+%ŠË±é¥Šwÿº{.nlj·¤z¹Þø®ÏžØn‡r¡öë¨è&£ûz¹Þúzf£¢·hšˆ§~††Ûÿÿïÿ‘ê_èæ+v‰¨þ)ßø
