Re: rquota overflow fix never applied ?

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 02:09 am, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday August 30, vapier@gentoo.org wrote:
> > Gentoo and Fedora both apply an old patch to resolve an overflow issue
> > ... is this just a case of fixes never going upstream or is there a
> > reason this hasnt been applied ... if so, can someone please clue me in
> > ;)
>
> Well..... the patch does seem to be somewhat flawed .....
> There is a comment, and matching code, and the code is changed, but
> not the comment !!! :-)

i'm just the messenger, i didnt write it ;)

> However I don't think that would be the reason.  I think it either has
> not been sent upstream, it when it was it was missed and not resent.
>
> I have added it to my tree, with appropriate changes to the comment.
>
> However I seem to be a bit thick today and cannot see where the
> overflow is happening.
> dqblk is 6 u_int32_t's and 2 time_t's
> struct rquota (after rq_bhardlimit) is 8 u_int's
>
> On what arch are there different?
> (maybe time_t isn't 32bits everwhere, is that it?)

the overflow occurs on 64bit arches due to the size differences in time_t ... 
for original description of the issue and author of the patch, please see 
(sorry, should have included this in the first e-mail):
http://bugs.gentoo.org/72113
-mike


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs