linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] i2c: designware: use casting of u64 in clock multiplication to avoid 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:26:05 +0200
From:   "Hawa, Hanna" <hhhawa@...zon.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     <wsa@...nel.org>, <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, <jsd@...ihalf.com>,
        <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, <benh@...zon.com>, <ronenk@...zon.com>,
        <talel@...zon.com>, <jonnyc@...zon.com>, <hanochu@...zon.com>,
        <farbere@...zon.com>, <itamark@...zon.com>, <lareine@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] i2c: designware: use casting of u64 in clock
 multiplication to avoid overflow



On 12/20/2022 12:47 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> Fixes: 2373f6b9744d ("i2c-designware: split of i2c-designware.c into core and bus specific parts")
> It's not clear if the second patch you sent (about unsigned long --> u32) is
> required or not, can you clarify this in the changelog?
> 

Sure will add to the changelog, it's not required to have the second 
change to avoid the overflow.

>> Signed-off-by: Lareine Khawaly<lareine@...zon.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanna Hawa<hhhawa@...zon.com>
> This should be last part of the message body. The cutter '---' line makes it
> so, currently you finish your message with a changelog and not tags. So, you
> need to move the changelog after the cutter line.

Thanks for the info. will update.

> 
>> Change Log v2->v3:
.
.
>> -             return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(ic_clk * tSYMBOL, MICRO) - 8 + offset;
>> +             return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)ic_clk * tSYMBOL,
>> +                                          MICRO) - 8 + offset;
> There is still a room for 'MICRO) -' part on the previous line.
> Ditto for the similar cases.

Ack will be fixed