Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:43:51 -0700 | From | Dirk Brandewie <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: fix possible integer overflow |
| |
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@gmail.com> >> Acked-by: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com> > > Actually, isn't (pstate << 8) guaranteed not to overflow? >
Yes, I was assuming this was caught by a static checking tool. I didn't see a downside to giving the compilier complete information.
>>> --- >>> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c >>> index badf620..43446b5 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c >>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c >>> @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ static void intel_pstate_set_pstate(struct cpudata *cpu, int pstate) >>> trace_cpu_frequency(pstate * 100000, cpu->cpu); >>> >>> cpu->pstate.current_pstate = pstate; >>> - val = pstate << 8; >>> + val = (u64)pstate << 8; >>> if (limits.no_turbo) >>> val |= (u64)1 << 32; >>> >>> >>
| |