linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-next] Fix unintentional integer 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <007679b9-b7b6-4385-9a2e-2be392cb5f58@amd.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 09:04:49 +0530
From: "Sundararaju, Sathishkumar" <sasundar@....com>
To: Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>
Cc: Advait Dhamorikar <advaitdhamorikar@...il.com>,
 alexander.deucher@....com, christian.koenig@....com, Xinhui.Pan@....com,
 airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, leo.liu@....com,
 sathishkumar.sundararaju@....com, saleemkhan.jamadar@....com,
 Veerabadhran.Gopalakrishnan@....com, sonny.jiang@....com,
 amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
 anupnewsmail@...il.com, "Lazar, Lijo" <lijo.lazar@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next] Fix unintentional integer overflow



On 10/4/2024 11:30 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 5:15 AM Sundararaju, Sathishkumar
> <sasundar@....com> wrote:
>>
>> All occurrences of this error fix should have been together in a single patch both in _get and _set callbacks corresponding to f0b19b84d391, please avoid separate patch for each occurrence.
>>
>> Sorry Alex, I missed to note this yesterday.
> I've dropped the patch.  Please pick it up once it's fixed up appropriately.
Thanks Alex.

Hi Advait,
Please collate the changes together with Lijo's suggestion as well, 
"1ULL <<" instead of typecast, there are 3 occurrences of the error in 
f0b19b84d391.

Regards,
Sathish
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sathish
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/2024 1:46 PM, Advait Dhamorikar wrote:
>>
>> Fix shift-count-overflow when creating mask.
>> The expression's value may not be what the
>> programmer intended, because the expression is
>> evaluated using a narrower integer type.
>>
>> Fixes: f0b19b84d391 ("drm/amdgpu: add amdgpu_jpeg_sched_mask debugfs")
>> Signed-off-by: Advait Dhamorikar <advaitdhamorikar@...il.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_jpeg.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_jpeg.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_jpeg.c
>> index 95e2796919fc..7df402c45f40 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_jpeg.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_jpeg.c
>> @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ static int amdgpu_debugfs_jpeg_sched_mask_get(void *data, u64 *val)
>>    for (j = 0; j < adev->jpeg.num_jpeg_rings; ++j) {
>>    ring = &adev->jpeg.inst[i].ring_dec[j];
>>    if (ring->sched.ready)
>> - mask |= 1 << ((i * adev->jpeg.num_jpeg_rings) + j);
>> + mask |= (u64)1 << ((i * adev->jpeg.num_jpeg_rings) + j);
>>    }
>>    }
>>    *val = mask;