Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 23:55:01 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow? Message-ID: <20191211215501.GV2744@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <abd625ad-7854-e143-425d-e3fc67ea4488@vangyzen.net> References: <abd625ad-7854-e143-425d-e3fc67ea4488@vangyzen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:26:41AM -0600, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > Since ino64 went in, Coverity complains that the two "ino >= foo" > comparisons in ffs_fhtovp() compare a 64-bit value to a 32-bit. Is this > a problem in practice? I do not think that this a problem, and Coverity could be a bit smarter there. The ino variable is 64bit, but why is it worrysome to compare it with a 32 bit value ? We want to limit the value to the max possible inode number but still keep it type-correct. In fact, the ino value is initialized from 32bit struct ufid ufid_ino, so Coverity could understand that and shut down the warning for formal reasons.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191211215501.GV2744>