On 07/12/2020 19:59, Andrea Mayer wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 14:45:03 +0000
> Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Shifting the integer value 1 is evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic
>> and then used in an expression that expects a unsigned long value
>> leads to a potential integer overflow. Fix this by using the BIT
>> macro to perform the shift to avoid the overflow.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Uninitentional integer overflow")
>> Fixes: 964adce526a4 ("seg6: improve management of behavior attributes")
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> net/ipv6/seg6_local.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/seg6_local.c b/net/ipv6/seg6_local.c
>> index b07f7c1c82a4..d68de8cd1207 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/seg6_local.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/seg6_local.c
>> @@ -1366,7 +1366,7 @@ static void __destroy_attrs(unsigned long parsed_attrs, int max_parsed,
>> * attribute; otherwise, we call the destroy() callback.
>> */
>> for (i = 0; i < max_parsed; ++i) {
>> - if (!(parsed_attrs & (1 << i)))
>> + if (!(parsed_attrs & BIT(i)))
>> continue;
>>
>> param = &seg6_action_params[i];
>> --
>> 2.29.2
>>
>
> Hi Colin,
> thanks for the fix. I've just given a look a the whole seg6_local.c code and I
> found that such issues is present in other parts of the code.
>
> If we agree, I can make a fix which explicitly eliminates the several (1 << i)
> in favor of BIT(i).
Sounds good to me.
Colin
>
> Andrea
>
