On 6/23/16 12:07 PM, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> Coverity complains that when multiplying two 32 bit values that
> eventually will be stored in a 64 bit value that it's possible
> the math could overflow unless one of the values being multiplied
> is type cast to the proper size.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bill O'Donnell <billodo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Makes sense. Given that this is repair, and either value could
be larger than expected, we need the skip value to be accurate.
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> repair/sb.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/repair/sb.c b/repair/sb.c
> index 3965953..8d4843c 100644
> --- a/repair/sb.c
> +++ b/repair/sb.c
> @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ find_secondary_sb(xfs_sb_t *rsb)
> do_warn(_("\nattempting to find secondary superblock...\n"));
>
> if (verify_sb_blocksize(rsb) == 0) {
> - skip = rsb->sb_agblocks * rsb->sb_blocksize;
> + skip = (__uint64_t)rsb->sb_agblocks * rsb->sb_blocksize;
> if (skip >= XFS_AG_MIN_BYTES && skip <= XFS_AG_MAX_BYTES)
> retval = __find_secondary_sb(rsb, skip, skip);
> }
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
