those are reasonable requirements but the check remains obscure and it
looks more like an off by one error than an overflow check. This I feel
will improve readability.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
for (; old_addr < old_end; old_addr += extent, new_addr += extent) {
cond_resched();
next = (old_addr + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
- if (next - 1 > old_end)
- next = old_end;
+ /* even if next overflowed, extent below will be ok */
extent = next - old_addr;
+ if (extent > old_end - old_addr)
+ extent = old_end - old_addr;
old_pmd = get_old_pmd(vma->vm_mm, old_addr);
if (!old_pmd)
continue;