linux-kernel - Re: i386: kernel/sched/debug.c:341:57: error: integer overflow in expression of type 'long int' results in '-100663296' [-Werror=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]

Message-ID: <e11ca9f9-d780-4d92-b9be-d549f97b4e67@suswa.mountain>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:26:05 -0500
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc: open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
	Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: i386: kernel/sched/debug.c:341:57: error: integer overflow in
 expression of type 'long int' results in '-100663296' [-Werror=overflow]

On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 08:42:07PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> The i386 kselftest merge config build failed due to following warnings / errors
> on today's Linux next-20240801 tag with gcc-13.
> 
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
> 
> Build log:
> --------
> In file included from kernel/sched/build_utility.c:72:
> kernel/sched/debug.c:341:57: error: integer overflow in expression of
> type 'long int' results in '-100663296' [-Werror=overflow]
>   341 | static unsigned long fair_server_period_max = (1 << 22) *
> NSEC_PER_USEC; /* ~4 seconds */
>       |                                                         ^
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors

It needs to be 1U << 22.  It's probably more traditional to write it as
1UL << 22, although they equivalent here.

I can send a patch for that.

regards,
dan carpenter