Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: fix possible integer overflow

[Geyslan GregÃrio Bem]

2013/10/21 Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2013, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 03:43:51 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>> > On 10/21/2013 03:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > > On Monday, October 21, 2013 08:56:22 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>> > >> On 10/19/2013 08:31 PM, Geyslan G. Bem wrote:
>> > >>> The expression 'pstate << 8' is evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic
>> > >>> while
>> > >>> 'val' expects an expression of type u64.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem <geyslan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> Acked-by: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >
>> > > Actually, isn't (pstate << 8) guaranteed not to overflow?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes, I was assuming this was caught by a static checking tool.
>>

Yes, it was caught by Coverity, and I didn't debug the possibles pstate's.

>> What was caught by the tool was the fact that 1UL << 32 might overflow on
>> 32-bit, so using BIT(32) wasn't correct.

This is the entire output:

CID 1108110 (#1 of 1): Unintentional integer overflow
(OVERFLOW_BEFORE_WIDEN)overflow_before_widen: Potentially overflowing
expression "pstate << 8" with type "int" (32 bits, signed) is
evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic before being used in a context which
expects an expression of type "u64" (64 bits, unsigned). To avoid
overflow, cast the left operand to "u64" before performing the left
shift.

>>
>> > I didn't see a downside to giving the compilier complete information.
>>
>> Well, in that case the function's argument should be u64 rather than int.
>>
>> Either you know that it won't overflow, in which case the explicit type
>> casting doesn't change anything, or you are not sure, in which case it's
>> better to use u64 as the original type anyway in my opinion.
>
>
> pstate << 8 can't overflow we can drop this

I realized that are five calls to intel_pstate_set_pstate()

/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c:410
/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c:417
/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c:432
/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c:514
/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c:566

I really don't know if the values that pstate assumes could cause
overflow. And I really don't know if these values may change in the
future. So I have assumed that the most careful is to cast, making the
code error proof.

But you know the code, thus know what is better. ;)

Cheers.

>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> I speak only for myself.
>> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/