First, new_l1_size is an int64_t, whereas min_size is a uint64_t.
Therefore, during the loop which adjusts new_l1_size until it equals or
exceeds min_size, new_l1_size might overflow and become negative. The
comparison in the loop condition however will take it as an unsigned
value (because min_size is unsigned) and therefore recognize it as
exceeding min_size. Therefore, the loop is left with a negative
new_l1_size, which is not correct. This could be fixed by making
new_l1_size uint64_t.
On the other hand, however, by doing this, the while loop may take
forever. If min_size is e.g. UINT64_MAX, it will take new_l1_size
probably multiple overflows to reach the exact same value (if it reaches
it at all). Then, right after the loop, new_l1_size will be recognized
as being too big anyway.
Both problems require a ridiculously high min_size value, which is very
unlikely to occur; but both problems are also simply avoided by checking
whether min_size is sane before calculating new_l1_size (which should
still be checked separately, though).
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
b93f995081