From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADBF079EC5 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:57:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A366E1EE00 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:56:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 8D4E21EDF3 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:56:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6272B45FE9 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:56:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:56:45 +0200 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Dominik Csapak Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <20211028105645.7uefb73mu4cq374k@olga.proxmox.com> References: <20211028094044.2905513-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211028094044.2905513-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.579 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [rrd.rs] Subject: [pbs-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup] rrd: use saturating_sub to avoid underflow X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:57:17 -0000 applied On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:40:44AM +0200, Dominik Csapak wrote: > Without this, the tests fail in debug mode. > Also having start (u64) underflow to a value greater than end does > not really make sense > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > proxmox-rrd/src/rrd.rs | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/proxmox-rrd/src/rrd.rs b/proxmox-rrd/src/rrd.rs > index 20bf6ae3..2fab9df3 100644 > --- a/proxmox-rrd/src/rrd.rs > +++ b/proxmox-rrd/src/rrd.rs > @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ impl RRD { > match rra { > Some(rra) => { > let end = end.unwrap_or_else(|| proxmox_time::epoch_f64() as u64); > - let start = start.unwrap_or(end - 10*rra.resolution); > + let start = start.unwrap_or(end.saturating_sub(10*rra.resolution)); > Ok(rra.extract_data(start, end, self.source.last_update)) > } > None => bail!("unable to find RRA suitable ({:?}:{})", cf, resolution), > -- > 2.30.2