[lustre-devel] [bug report] staging: add Lustre file system client support

[Oleg Drokin]

On Dec 6, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:44:54AM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>> I see, indeed, it all makes sense now.
>> So basically if we unconditionally check for the size to be > 0, we should be
>> fine then, I imagine.
>> On the other hand there's probably no se for no param and nonzero param len,
>> so it's probably even better to enforce size as zero when no param.
> 
> Checking for > 0 is not enough, because it could also have an integer
> overflow on 32 bit systems.  We need to cap the upper bound as well.

How would it play out, though?
offsetof(struct lstcon_test, tes_param[large_positive_int]) would result in
some real "large" negative number.
So trying to allocate this many negative bytes would fail, right?