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:   Wed, 22 Nov 2023 22:40:46 +0300
From:   Nikita Kiryushin <>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
Cc:     Len Brown <>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: LPIT: fix u32 multiplication overflow

My reasoning was around something like:

1) tsc_khz is declared as unsigned int tsc_khz;

2) tsc_khz * 1000 would overflow, if the result is larger, than an 
unsigned int could hold;

3) given tsc_khz * 1000 > UINT_MAX is bad, tsc_khz > UINT_MAX / 1000 is bad;

4) if UINT_MAX is 4294967295, than tsc_khz > 4294967.295 is bad, for 
example 4294968 would lead to overflow;

5) 4294968 kHz is 4294.968 MHz, which seems realistically high to me.

For me, tsc: Refined TSC clocksource calibration: 3393.624 MHz

(seems like, it is derived from the same value,

pr_info("Refined TSC clocksource calibration: %lu.%03lu MHz\n",
         (unsigned long)tsc_khz / 1000,
         (unsigned long)tsc_khz % 1000);


Not sure about the math above, but it seemed reasonable enough to me to 
switch to overflow-resilient arithmetic here.

On 11/21/23 23:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 8:56 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <> wrote:
> That should be "hundreds of thousands of kHz", so I was mistaken.
> But anyway:
>> Why is it really a concern?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists