linux-kernel - integer overflow in i2o

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.64.0707262322240.7082@math.ut.ee>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:30:01 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
To:	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: integer overflow in i2o_block

Got this warning on 32-bit ppc, seems real? And it seems I2O 
subsystem has no maintainer (only DPT_I2O has one)?

  CC [M]  drivers/message/i2o/i2o_block.o
drivers/message/i2o/i2o_block.c: In function 'i2o_block_transfer':
drivers/message/i2o/i2o_block.c:837: warning: integer overflow in expression

The line in question is
msg->u.head[1] = cpu_to_le32(I2O_CMD_PRIVATE << 24 | HOST_TID << 12 | tid);
and I2O_CMD_PRIVATE is defined as 0xFF. This gets "0xFF0100 | tid" and 
fits into 32-bit unsigned but not into 32-bit signed integer properly.
Target value head[*] is defined as u32 so the claculation does not fit 
during computation? Should we mark the shiftable inputas as unsigned?

-- 
Meelis Roos (mroos@...ux.ee)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/