On Sun, 03 Nov 2024 08:43:14 +0000
Karan Sanghavi <karansanghvi98@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Karan Sanghavi <karansanghvi98@xxxxxxxxx>
If it's a real bug, needs a Fixes tag so we know how far to backport it.
> ---
> 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,
