[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241109152804.22f20170@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:28:04 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Karan Sanghavi <karansanghvi98@...il.com>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Anup
<anupnewsmail@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: invensense: fix integer overflow while
multiplication
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 16:26:31 +0000
Karan Sanghavi <karansanghvi98@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 11:18:27AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Nov 2024 08:43:14 +0000
> > Karan Sanghavi <karansanghvi98@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Karan,
> >
> > > Typecast a variable to int64_t for 64-bit arithmetic multiplication
> >
> > The path to actually triggering this is non obvious as these
> > inputs are the result of rather complex code paths and per chip
> > constraints. Have you identified a particular combination that overflows
> > or is this just based on the type? I have no problem with applying this
> > as hardening against future uses but unless we have a path to trigger
> > it today it isn't a fix.
> >
> > If you do have a path, this description should state what it is.
> >
>
> The above issue is discovered by Coverity with CID 1586045 and 1586044.
> Link: https://scan7.scan.coverity.com/#/project-view/51946/11354?selectedIssue=1586045
>
> Should I mention this path in the commit short message?
That wasn't what I meant. I was after what combination of possible
inputs actually trigger this rather than (I suspect) local analysis coverity has
done.
>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Karan Sanghavi <karansanghvi98@...il.com>
> > If it's a real bug, needs a Fixes tag so we know how far to backport it.
> >
>
> What kind of Fixes tag should I provide here.
The patch that introduced the bug in the first place. See submitting patches
docs for the format.
However, I suspect this is coverity firing a false positive be it a reasonable
one that we should tidy up. As such I'll queue this patch up, but not
as a fix that I'm rushing in, but just as general cleanup for next cycle.
If you find a path to trigger the overflow via userspace inputs etc
then I'm happy to move it over to being handled as an urgent fix.
Jonathan
>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iio/common/inv_sensors/inv_sensors_timestamp.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/inv_sensors/inv_sensors_timestamp.c b/drivers/iio/common/inv_sensors/inv_sensors_timestamp.c
> > > index f44458c380d9..d1d11d0b2458 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/common/inv_sensors/inv_sensors_timestamp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/common/inv_sensors/inv_sensors_timestamp.c
> > > @@ -105,8 +105,8 @@ static bool inv_update_chip_period(struct inv_sensors_timestamp *ts,
> > >
> > > static void inv_align_timestamp_it(struct inv_sensors_timestamp *ts)
> > > {
> > > - const int64_t period_min = ts->min_period * ts->mult;
> > > - const int64_t period_max = ts->max_period * ts->mult;
> > > + const int64_t period_min = (int64_t)ts->min_period * ts->mult;
> > > + const int64_t period_max = (int64_t)ts->max_period * ts->mult;
> > > int64_t add_max, sub_max;
> > > int64_t delta, jitter;
> > > int64_t adjust;
> > >
> > > ---
> > > base-commit: 81983758430957d9a5cb3333fe324fd70cf63e7e
> > > change-id: 20241102-coverity1586045integeroverflow-cbbf357475d9
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> >
>
> Thank you,
> Karan.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists