From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754368Ab3KBPml (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Nov 2013 11:42:41 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:60794 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754322Ab3KBPmj (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Nov 2013 11:42:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 08:44:46 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Chen Gang Cc: Kees Cook , Al Viro , "Eric W. Biederman" , Serge Hallyn , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/befs/linuxvfs.c: need signed cast for variable 'block' Message-ID: <20131102154446.GB23938@kroah.com> References: <5271C5E5.6080606@asianux.com> <20131031190608.GH13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20131031204558.GA30290@kroah.com> <527314D5.7090004@asianux.com> <52750237.5060409@asianux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52750237.5060409@asianux.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 09:46:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > On 11/01/2013 10:41 AM, Chen Gang wrote: > > On 11/01/2013 04:45 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:08:33PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Al Viro wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:53:59AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> If block (type sector_t) is unsigned, we shouldn't cast it signed. > >>>>> This entire code path should be removed. What is BEFS's expected > >>>>> maximum block size? (Looks like even befs_blocknr_t is u64, so nothing > >>>>> seems trivially in danger of wrapping.) I would also note that all the > >>>>> format strings are wrong too (%ld instead of %lu). > >>>> > >>>> FWIW, this > >>>> res = befs_fblock2brun(sb, ds, block, &run); > >>>> if (res != BEFS_OK) { > >>>> befs_error(sb, > >>>> "<--- befs_get_block() for inode %lu, block " > >>>> "%ld ERROR", inode->i_ino, block); > >>>> return -EFBIG; > >>>> } > >>>> also looks wrong - ioctl(..., FIBMAP, ...) shouldn't be able to spew > >>>> printks on a valid fs and hitting it with block number greater than > >>>> file length will, AFAICS, trigger that. > >>>> > >>>> I agree that this code needs fixing, but just making gcc STFU about the > >>>> comparison would only serve to hide the problem. Anybody familiar with > >>>> befs or willing to learn it? > >>> > >>> Agreed. MAINTAINERS shows it as orphaned. Perhaps it should be moved > >>> into staging? > >> > >> Only if we want to delete the thing. I'll be glad to take it there, and > >> remove it in 2 releases and then if anyone complains, we can add it back > >> easily. Just let me know. > >> > > > > Excuse me, I am not quite familiar with BEFS, I guess your meaning is: > > > > "if it is no further more discussion (e.g. within 1 week, no members reply), you will remove it (take it to "drivers/staging" sub-directory)". > > > > Oh, for me, it is not suitable to move a file system sub-directory to > "drivers/*/" sub-directory. And I can not find any sub-directory like > 'staging' under "fs" sub-directory, either. > > Do we have any sub-directory like "staging" in "fs" sub-directory? if > no, do we have to create it or have to use another ways instead of? Just move the filesystem to drivers/staging/befs.