From: Mark Langsdorf <mlangsdo@xxxxxxxxxx> [ Upstream commit f81bdeaf816142e0729eea0cc84c395ec9673151 ] ACPICA commit bc02c76d518135531483dfc276ed28b7ee632ce1 The current ACPI_ACCESS_*_WIDTH defines do not provide a way to test that size is small enough to not cause an overflow when applied to a 32-bit integer. Rather than adding more magic numbers, add ACPI_ACCESS_*_SHIFT, ACPI_ACCESS_*_MAX, and ACPI_ACCESS_*_DEFAULT #defines and redefine ACPI_ACCESS_*_WIDTH in terms of the new #defines. This was inititally reported on Linux where a size of 102 in ACPI_ACCESS_BIT_WIDTH caused an overflow error in the SPCR initialization code. Link: https://github.com/acpica/acpica/commit/bc02c76d Signed-off-by: Mark Langsdorf <mlangsdo@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Bob Moore <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> --- include/acpi/actypes.h | 10 ++++++++-- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/acpi/actypes.h b/include/acpi/actypes.h index 2939a6cd7fecb..9fc1dfc7f4c32 100644 --- a/include/acpi/actypes.h +++ b/include/acpi/actypes.h @@ -532,8 +532,14 @@ typedef u64 acpi_integer; * Can be used with access_width of struct acpi_generic_address and access_size of * struct acpi_resource_generic_register. */ -#define ACPI_ACCESS_BIT_WIDTH(size) (1 << ((size) + 2)) -#define ACPI_ACCESS_BYTE_WIDTH(size) (1 << ((size) - 1)) +#define ACPI_ACCESS_BIT_SHIFT 2 +#define ACPI_ACCESS_BYTE_SHIFT -1 +#define ACPI_ACCESS_BIT_MAX (31 - ACPI_ACCESS_BIT_SHIFT) +#define ACPI_ACCESS_BYTE_MAX (31 - ACPI_ACCESS_BYTE_SHIFT) +#define ACPI_ACCESS_BIT_DEFAULT (8 - ACPI_ACCESS_BIT_SHIFT) +#define ACPI_ACCESS_BYTE_DEFAULT (8 - ACPI_ACCESS_BYTE_SHIFT) +#define ACPI_ACCESS_BIT_WIDTH(size) (1 << ((size) + ACPI_ACCESS_BIT_SHIFT)) +#define ACPI_ACCESS_BYTE_WIDTH(size) (1 << ((size) + ACPI_ACCESS_BYTE_SHIFT)) /******************************************************************************* * -- 2.34.1
