i am curious:
what is the win to have a unsigned 64 bit integer in the first
place ?
re,
wh
________________________________________
Von: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Montag, 8. Februar 2021 10:17:42
An: Colin King; Alex Deucher; David Airlie; Daniel Vetter; Huang Rui; Junwei Zhang; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: fix potential integer overflow on shift of a int
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);
> }
> }
>
