[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <203cf76c-3855-408c-9a7c-8ff3f74a88bd@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 09:38:49 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/lib: Fix overflow of variable m when val >=
1410065408
On 11/1/23 08:32, Colin Ian King wrote:
...
> int num_digits(int val)
> {
> - int m = 10;
> + long m = 10;
> int d = 1;
>
> if (val < 0) {
Isn't this still broken on 32-bit where sizeof(long) == sizeof(int)?
Seems like we need 'm' to be able to hold values that are ~10x larger
than 'val' if we need this to work for the entire int range.
Also, performance doesn't matter here at *all* with the current use in
a couple of printk()'s. Just making 'm' 'long long' or u64 probably be
just fine.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists