[PATCH][next] ext4: fix two cases where a u32 is being checked for a less than zero error return

[PATCH][next] ext4: fix two cases where a u32 is being checked for a less than zero error return

[Colin King]

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>

There are two cases where u32 variables n and err are being checked
for less than zero error values, the checks is always false because
the variables are not signed. Fix this by making the variables ints.

Addresses-Coverity: ("Unsigned compared against 0")
Fixes: 345c0dbf3a30 ("ext4: protect journal inode's blocks using block_validity")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
---
 fs/ext4/block_validity.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/block_validity.c b/fs/ext4/block_validity.c
index 968f163b5feb..8d03550aaae3 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/block_validity.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/block_validity.c
@@ -142,7 +142,8 @@ static int ext4_protect_reserved_inode(struct super_block *sb, u32 ino)
 	struct inode *inode;
 	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
 	struct ext4_map_blocks map;
-	u32 i = 0, err = 0, num, n;
+	u32 i = 0, num;
+	int err = 0, n;
 
 	if ((ino < EXT4_ROOT_INO) ||
 	    (ino > le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_inodes_count)))
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH][next] ext4: fix two cases where a u32 is being checked for a less than zero error return

[Colin King]

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>

There are two cases where u32 variables n and err are being checked
for less than zero error values, the checks is always false because
the variables are not signed. Fix this by making the variables ints.

Addresses-Coverity: ("Unsigned compared against 0")
Fixes: 345c0dbf3a30 ("ext4: protect journal inode's blocks using block_validity")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
---
 fs/ext4/block_validity.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/block_validity.c b/fs/ext4/block_validity.c
index 968f163b5feb..8d03550aaae3 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/block_validity.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/block_validity.c
@@ -142,7 +142,8 @@ static int ext4_protect_reserved_inode(struct super_block *sb, u32 ino)
 	struct inode *inode;
 	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
 	struct ext4_map_blocks map;
-	u32 i = 0, err = 0, num, n;
+	u32 i = 0, num;
+	int err = 0, n;
 
 	if ((ino < EXT4_ROOT_INO) ||
 	    (ino > le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_inodes_count)))
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH][next] ext4: fix two cases where a u32 is being checked for a less than zero error return

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:09:08PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> 
> There are two cases where u32 variables n and err are being checked
> for less than zero error values, the checks is always false because
> the variables are not signed. Fix this by making the variables ints.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unsigned compared against 0")
> Fixes: 345c0dbf3a30 ("ext4: protect journal inode's blocks using block_validity")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>

Thanks, applied.

					- Ted

Re: [PATCH][next] ext4: fix two cases where a u32 is being checked for a less than zero error return

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:09:08PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> 
> There are two cases where u32 variables n and err are being checked
> for less than zero error values, the checks is always false because
> the variables are not signed. Fix this by making the variables ints.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unsigned compared against 0")
> Fixes: 345c0dbf3a30 ("ext4: protect journal inode's blocks using block_validity")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>

Thanks, applied.

					- Ted