On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 14:07 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote: > On 05/05/2019 04:34, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 17:40 +0100, Colin King wrote: > > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Currently the shift of int value 1 by more than 31 places can > > > result in undefined behaviour. Fix this by making the 1 a ULL > > > value before the shift operation. > > > > Fusion SAS is pretty ancient. I thought the largest one ever > > produced had four phys, so how did you produce the overflow? > > This was an issue found by static analysis with Coverity; so I guess > won't happen in the wild, in which case the patch could be ignored. The point I was more making is that if we thought this could ever happen in practice, we'd need more error handling than simply this: we'd be setting the phy_bitmap to zero which would be every bit as bad as some random illegal value. James
