[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b8183f5e-7c4f-48c1-8130-54b77e55349d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 17:25:29 +0000
From: "Colin King (gmail)" <colin.i.king@...il.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.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 02/11/2023 16:38, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.
Good point, long long is required for 32 bit,
sizes:
arch int long long long
i386 4 4 8
x86_64 4 8 8
I'll send a V2.
>
> 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