On 1/16/24 18:21, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:23 AM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> ``max_count`` negative values are not used. Since ``port->fifosize``
>> is an unsigned int, make ``max_count`` the same.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
>> index 90c49197efc7..dbbe6b8e3ceb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
>> @@ -760,8 +760,8 @@ static irqreturn_t s3c24xx_serial_rx_chars_dma(void *dev_id)
>> static void s3c24xx_serial_rx_drain_fifo(struct s3c24xx_uart_port *ourport)
>> {
>> struct uart_port *port = &ourport->port;
>> + unsigned int max_count = port->fifosize;
>
> What if port->fifosize is 0? Then this code below:
>
> while (max_count-- > 0) {
>
> would cause int overflow, if max_count is unsigned?
>
good catch, Sam!
I'm thinking of amending this and add at the beginning of the method:
if (!max_count)
return tty_flip_buffer_push(&port->state->port);
Thanks!
ta
