linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-xilinx: Fix integer overflow

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]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VdWS9DKd=xs8Kitoo9GZCsiNf7gt5HjfZn-9zNXBdvMEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jul 2022 22:21:00 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Srinivas Neeli <srinivas.neeli@...inx.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        neelisrinivas18@...il.com,
        Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@...inx.com>,
        srinivas.neeli@....com, Srinivas Goud <sgoud@...inx.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        git <git@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpio-xilinx: Fix integer overflow

On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 10:04 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 9:19 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:39 AM Srinivas Neeli
> > <srinivas.neeli@...inx.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Current implementation is not able to configure more than 32 pins
> > > due to incorrect data type. So type casting with unsigned long
> > > to avoid it.
>
> > > Fixes: 02b3f84d9080 ("xilinx: Switch to use bitmap APIs")
>
> It doesn't fix anything,  I already reject one such "fix" during
> development of this patch. Thanks!

Sorry, not my day, it was something else that time... See below.

> ...
>
> > > @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ c
>
> > Applied, thanks!
>
> False positive.

Reading again... You mean that

  unsigned long x = y << 32;

wouldn't work?



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko