[-mm PATCH][4/4] net: signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c

[-mm PATCH][4/4] net: signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c

[Jesper Juhl]

This patch changes the type of the third parameter 'length' of the 
raw_send_hdrinc() function from 'int' to 'size_t'.
This makes sense since this function is only ever called from one 
location, and the value passed as the third parameter in that location is 
itself of type size_t, so this makes the recieving functions parameter 
type match. Also, inside raw_send_hdrinc() the 'length' variable is 
used in comparisons with unsigned values and passed as parameter to 
functions expecting unsigned values (it's used in a single comparison with 
a signed value, but that one can never actually be negative so the patch 
also casts that one to size_t to stop gcc worrying, and it is passed in a 
single instance to memcpy_fromiovecend() which expects a signed int, but 
as far as I can see that's not a problem since the value of 'length' 
shouldn't ever exceed the value of a signed int).


Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
---

 net/ipv4/raw.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- linux-2.6.12-rc6-mm1/net/ipv4/raw.c.with_patch-3	2005-06-15 23:17:23.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc6-mm1/net/ipv4/raw.c	2005-06-15 23:26:48.000000000 +0200
@@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ int raw_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_b
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int raw_send_hdrinc(struct sock *sk, void *from, int length,
+static int raw_send_hdrinc(struct sock *sk, void *from, size_t length,
 			struct rtable *rt, 
 			unsigned int flags)
 {
@@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ static int raw_send_hdrinc(struct sock *
 		goto error_fault;
 
 	/* We don't modify invalid header */
-	if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && iph->ihl * 4 <= length) {
+	if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && (size_t)(iph->ihl * 4) <= length) {
 		if (!iph->saddr)
 			iph->saddr = rt->rt_src;
 		iph->check   = 0;

Re: [-mm PATCH][4/4] net: signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c

[David S. Miller]

From: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:32:22 +0200 (CEST)

> -	if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && iph->ihl * 4 <= length) {
> +	if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && (size_t)(iph->ihl * 4) <= length) {

Would changing the "4" into "4U" kill this warning just the same?

I think I'd prefer that.

Re: [-mm PATCH][4/4] net: signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c

[Jesper Juhl]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, David S. Miller wrote:

> From: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:32:22 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> > -	if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && iph->ihl * 4 <= length) {
> > +	if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && (size_t)(iph->ihl * 4) <= length) {
> 
> Would changing the "4" into "4U" kill this warning just the same?
> 
It would.

> I think I'd prefer that.
> 
No problem. Here's a replacement patch nr. 4 : 


Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
---

 net/ipv4/raw.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- linux-2.6.12-rc6-mm1/net/ipv4/raw.c.with_patch-3	2005-06-15 23:17:23.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc6-mm1/net/ipv4/raw.c	2005-06-15 23:37:11.000000000 +0200
@@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ int raw_rcv(struct sock *sk, struct sk_b
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int raw_send_hdrinc(struct sock *sk, void *from, int length,
+static int raw_send_hdrinc(struct sock *sk, void *from, size_t length,
 			struct rtable *rt, 
 			unsigned int flags)
 {
@@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ static int raw_send_hdrinc(struct sock *
 		goto error_fault;
 
 	/* We don't modify invalid header */
-	if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && iph->ihl * 4 <= length) {
+	if (length >= sizeof(*iph) && iph->ihl * 4U <= length) {
 		if (!iph->saddr)
 			iph->saddr = rt->rt_src;
 		iph->check   = 0;

Re: [-mm PATCH][4/4] net: signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c

[David S. Miller]

From: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:40:12 +0200 (CEST)

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, David S. Miller wrote:
> 
> > I think I'd prefer that.
> > 
> No problem. Here's a replacement patch nr. 4 : 

Thanks a lot.  All 4 patches applied to my 2.6.13-pending tree.

Re: [-mm PATCH][4/4] net: signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c

[Jesper Juhl]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, David S. Miller wrote:

> From: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:40:12 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, David S. Miller wrote:
> > 
> > > I think I'd prefer that.
> > > 
> > No problem. Here's a replacement patch nr. 4 : 
> 
> Thanks a lot.  All 4 patches applied to my 2.6.13-pending tree.
> 
Great, thanks, 'twas a pleasure working with you :)

-- 
Jesper