[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180130025141.Horde.h4aoQSwrqdPlpFtSKtB9DuS@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 02:51:41 -0600
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] platform: vivid-cec: fix potential integer overflow
in vivid_cec_pin_adap_events
Hi Hans,
Quoting Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> On 01/30/2018 01:33 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Cast len to const u64 in order to avoid a potential integer
>> overflow. This variable is being used in a context that expects
>> an expression of type const u64.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1454996 ("Unintentional integer overflow")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-cec.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-cec.c
>> b/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-cec.c
>> index b55d278..30240ab 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-cec.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-cec.c
>> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static void vivid_cec_pin_adap_events(struct
>> cec_adapter *adap, ktime_t ts,
>> if (adap == NULL)
>> return;
>> ts = ktime_sub_us(ts, (CEC_TIM_START_BIT_TOTAL +
>> - len * 10 * CEC_TIM_DATA_BIT_TOTAL));
>> + (const u64)len * 10 * CEC_TIM_DATA_BIT_TOTAL));
>
> This makes no sense. Certainly the const part is pointless. And given that
> len is always <= 16 there definitely is no overflow.
>
Yeah, I understand your point and I know there is no chance of an
overflow in this particular case.
> I don't really want this cast in the code.
>
> Sorry,
>
I'm working through all the Linux kernel Coverity reports, and I
thought of sending a patch for this because IMHO it doesn't hurt to
give the compiler complete information about the arithmetic in which
an expression is intended to be evaluated.
I agree that the _const_ part is a bit odd. What do you think about
the cast to u64 alone?
I appreciate your feedback.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists