Re: [Q] possible proc inode numbers overflow?

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 06:10:39PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> fs/proc/generic.c:
> #define PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST 0xF0000000UL
> static unsigned int get_inode_number(void)
> {
> 	...
>         inum = (i & MAX_ID_MASK) + PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST;
> 
>         /* inum will never be more than 0xf0ffffff, so no check
>          * for overflow.
>          */
> 	...
> }
> is it really correct? Looks like MAX_ID_MASK = 0x7FFFFFFF and 
> PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST is 0xF0000000.
> So at least the comment is wrong?

The comment is wrong. Albert Cahalan and I are working on a new fix.


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/