Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Coverity reported shift 16 bits could cause sign extension and might get
> an unexpected value. Since the input values are predefined and no this
> kind of case, original code is safe so far. But, still changing them to
> use u32_encode_bits() will be more clear and prevent mistakes in the
> future.
>
> The original message of Coverity is:
> Suspicious implicit sign extension: "max_cfg->cma0_dma" with type "u16"
> (16 bits, unsigned) is promoted in "max_cfg->cma0_dma << 16" to type
> "int" (32 bits, signed), then sign-extended to type "unsigned long"
> (64 bits, unsigned). If "max_cfg->cma0_dma << 16" is greater than
> 0x7FFFFFFF, the upper bits of the result will all be 1."
>
> Reported-by: coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1527095 ("Integer handling issues")
> Fixes: e3ec7017f6a2 ("rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver")
> Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Patch applied to wireless-next.git, thanks.
525c06c81d75 wifi: rtw89: use u32_encode_bits() to fill MAC quota value
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/20221108013858.10806-1-pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
