[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH 2/2] hw/arm/smmu-common: Fix coverity issue in get
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH 2/2] hw/arm/smmu-common: Fix coverity issue in get_block_pte_address |
Date: |
Wed, 16 May 2018 16:23:13 +0000 |
On 16 May 2018 at 16:16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 05/16/2018 03:03 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Coverity points out that this can overflow if n > 31,
>> because it's only doing 32-bit arithmetic. Let's use 1ULL instead
>> of 1. Also the formulae used to compute n can be replaced by
>> the level_shift() macro.
>
> This level_shift() replacement doesn't seems that obvious to me, can you
> split it in another patch?
>
>>
>> Reported-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> hw/arm/smmu-common.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/arm/smmu-common.c b/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
>> index 01c7be8..3c5f724 100644
>> --- a/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
>> +++ b/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
>> @@ -83,9 +83,9 @@ static inline hwaddr get_table_pte_address(uint64_t pte,
>> int granule_sz)
>> static inline hwaddr get_block_pte_address(uint64_t pte, int level,
>> int granule_sz, uint64_t *bsz)
>> {
>> - int n = (granule_sz - 3) * (4 - level) + 3;
>> + int n = level_shift(level, granule_sz);
>
> Shouldn't this be level_shift(level + 1, granule_sz)?
No. The two expressions are equivalent, they're
just arranged differently:
level_shift(lvl, gsz)
== gsz + (3 - lvl) * (gsz - 3)
== gsz + (4 - lvl) * (gsz - 3) - (gsz - 3)
== gsz - gsz + (4 - lvl) * (gsz - 3) + 3
== (gsz - 3) * (4 - lvl) + 3
thanks
-- PMM
[Qemu-arm] [PATCH 1/2] hw/arm/smmuv3: Fix Coverity issue in smmuv3_record_event, Eric Auger, 2018/05/16
Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH 0/2] ARM SMMUv3: Fix a couple of Coverity issues, Peter Maydell, 2018/05/17