linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.19 119/170] clk: sunxi-ng: Use u64 for calculation of NM rate

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

Date:   Mon,  7 Jan 2019 13:32:26 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 119/170] clk: sunxi-ng: Use u64 for calculation of NM rate

4.19-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>

commit 65b6657672388b72822e0367f06d41c1e3ffb5bb upstream.

Allwinner H6 SoC has multiplier N range between 1 and 254. Since parent
rate is 24MHz, intermediate result when calculating final rate easily
overflows 32 bit variable.

Because of that, introduce function for calculating clock rate which
uses 64 bit variable for intermediate result.

Fixes: 6174a1e24b0d ("clk: sunxi-ng: Add N-M-factor clock support")
Fixes: ee28648cb2b4 ("clk: sunxi-ng: Remove the use of rational computations")

CC: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>
Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c |   18 +++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu_nm.c
@@ -19,6 +19,17 @@ struct _ccu_nm {
 	unsigned long	m, min_m, max_m;
 };
 
+static unsigned long ccu_nm_calc_rate(unsigned long parent,
+				      unsigned long n, unsigned long m)
+{
+	u64 rate = parent;
+
+	rate *= n;
+	do_div(rate, m);
+
+	return rate;
+}
+
 static void ccu_nm_find_best(unsigned long parent, unsigned long rate,
 			     struct _ccu_nm *nm)
 {
@@ -28,7 +39,8 @@ static void ccu_nm_find_best(unsigned lo
 
 	for (_n = nm->min_n; _n <= nm->max_n; _n++) {
 		for (_m = nm->min_m; _m <= nm->max_m; _m++) {
-			unsigned long tmp_rate = parent * _n  / _m;
+			unsigned long tmp_rate = ccu_nm_calc_rate(parent,
+								  _n, _m);
 
 			if (tmp_rate > rate)
 				continue;
@@ -100,7 +112,7 @@ static unsigned long ccu_nm_recalc_rate(
 	if (ccu_sdm_helper_is_enabled(&nm->common, &nm->sdm))
 		rate = ccu_sdm_helper_read_rate(&nm->common, &nm->sdm, m, n);
 	else
-		rate = parent_rate * n / m;
+		rate = ccu_nm_calc_rate(parent_rate, n, m);
 
 	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate /= nm->fixed_post_div;
@@ -142,7 +154,7 @@ static long ccu_nm_round_rate(struct clk
 	_nm.max_m = nm->m.max ?: 1 << nm->m.width;
 
 	ccu_nm_find_best(*parent_rate, rate, &_nm);
-	rate = *parent_rate * _nm.n / _nm.m;
+	rate = ccu_nm_calc_rate(*parent_rate, _nm.n, _nm.m);
 
 	if (nm->common.features & CCU_FEATURE_FIXED_POSTDIV)
 		rate /= nm->fixed_post_div;