On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:22:27AM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> In file ext4fs.c funtion ext4fs_read_file() compares an
> unsigned expression with < 0 like below
>
> lbaint_t blknr;
> blknr = read_allocated_block(&(node->inode), i);
> if (blknr < 0)
> return -1;
>
> blknr is of type ulong/uint64_t. read_allocated_block() returns
> long int. So comparing blknr with < 0 will always be false. Instead
> declare blknr as long int.
>
> Reported-by: Sunita Nadampalli <suni...@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvu...@ti.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/ext4fs.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4fs.c b/fs/ext4/ext4fs.c
> index 7187dcfb05..081509dbb4 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4fs.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4fs.c
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ int ext4fs_read_file(struct ext2fs_node *node, loff_t pos,
> blockcnt = lldiv(((len + pos) + blocksize - 1), blocksize);
>
> for (i = lldiv(pos, blocksize); i < blockcnt; i++) {
> - lbaint_t blknr;
> + long int blknr;
> int blockoff = pos - (blocksize * i);
> int blockend = blocksize;
> int skipfirst = 0;My only question is, did you catch that by inspection, clang, or a newer than gcc-6.3 warning? Also, fs/ext4/dev.c:63 is a similar problem, if you'd like to non-RFC a v2. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
