Re: [BUG]memblock: fix overflow of array index

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thanks for the reply.   Just an educational question:  is it possible
to set one-byte per memblock?    And what is the minimum memblock
size?

Even if 2G memblock is a huge number, it still seemed like a bug to me
that there is no check on the maximum number (which is 2G) of this
variable (assuming signed int).   Software can always purposely push
that number up and the system can panic?

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:30:19PM +0800, Peter Teoh wrote:
>> Fixing the mismatch in signed and unsigned type assignment, which
>> potentially can lead to integer overflow bug.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Teoh <htmldeveloper@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> All indexes in memblock are integers.  Changing that particular one to
> unsigned int doesn't fix anything.  I think it just makes things more
> confusing.  If there ever are cases w/ more then 2G memblocks, we're
> going for 64bit not unsigned.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun



-- 
Regards,
Peter Teoh

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]