> -----Original Message----- > From: Colin King [mailto:colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 6:11 AM > To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T > <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx>; David S . Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; intel-wired- > lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [PATCH][next] ixgbe: fix potential u32 overflow on shift > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The u32 variable rem is being shifted using u32 arithmetic however > it is being passed to div_u64 that expects the expression to be a u64. > The 32 bit shift may potentially overflow, so cast rem to a u64 before > shifting to avoid this. > > Addresses-Coverity: ("Unintentional integer overflow") > Fixes: cd4583206990 ("ixgbe: implement support for SDP/PPS output on X550 > hardware") > Fixes: 68d9676fc04e ("ixgbe: fix PTP SDP pin setup on X540 hardware") > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ptp.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ptp.c > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ptp.c > index 2c4d327fcc2e..ff229d0e9146 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ptp.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ptp.c > @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static void ixgbe_ptp_setup_sdp_X540(struct ixgbe_adapter > *adapter) > * assumes that the cycle counter shift is small enough to avoid > * overflowing when shifting the remainder. > */ With this change, the comment above the div_u64 doesn't make much sense. I would also drop the part about the assuming it won't overflow the remainder. > - clock_edge += div_u64((rem << cc->shift), cc->mult); > + clock_edge += div_u64(((u64)rem << cc->shift), cc->mult); > trgttiml = (u32)clock_edge; > trgttimh = (u32)(clock_edge >> 32); > > @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ static void ixgbe_ptp_setup_sdp_X550(struct ixgbe_adapter > *adapter) > * assumes that the cycle counter shift is small enough to avoid > * overflowing when shifting the remainder. > */ Same here. Thanks, Jake > - clock_edge += div_u64((rem << cc->shift), cc->mult); > + clock_edge += div_u64(((u64)rem << cc->shift), cc->mult); > > /* X550 hardware stores the time in 32bits of 'billions of cycles' and > * 32bits of 'cycles'. There's no guarantee that cycles represents > -- > 2.20.1
