Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: fix potential integer overflow on shift of a int

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 08.02.21 um 00:07 schrieb Colin King:
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The left shift of int 32 bit integer constant 1 is evaluated using 32
bit arithmetic and then assigned to an unsigned 64 bit integer. In the
case where *frag is 32 or more this can lead to an oveflow.  Avoid this
by shifting 1ULL.

Well that can't happen. Take a look at the code in that function:

                max_frag = 31;
...
        if (*frag >= max_frag) {
                *frag = max_frag;
                *frag_end = end & ~((1ULL << max_frag) - 1);
        } else {
                *frag_end = start + (1 << *frag);
        }

But I'm fine with applying the patch if it silences your warning.

Regards,
Christian.


Addresses-Coverity: ("Unintentional integer overflow")
Fixes: dfcd99f6273e ("drm/amdgpu: meld together VM fragment and huge page handling")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
index 9d19078246c8..53a925600510 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
@@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@ static void amdgpu_vm_fragment(struct amdgpu_vm_update_params *params,
  		*frag = max_frag;
  		*frag_end = end & ~((1ULL << max_frag) - 1);
  	} else {
-		*frag_end = start + (1 << *frag);
+		*frag_end = start + (1ULL << *frag);
  	}
  }




[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Announce]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux