Re: [PATCH v11 09/15] iio: afe: rescale: reduce risk of integer overflow

Liam Beguin
2021-12-22T19:59:07Z

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 08:56:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 8:38 PM Liam Beguin <liambeguin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 02:29:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 5:47 AM Liam Beguin <liambeguin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > - tmp = 1 << *val2;
> > >
> > > At some point this should be BIT()
>
> Forgot to add, If it's 64-bit, then BIT_ULL().
>
> > I'm not against changing this, but (to me at least) 1 << *val2 seems
> > more explicit as we're not working with bitfields. No?
>
> You may add a comment. You may use int_pow(), but it will be suboptimal.
>
> > > Rule of thumb (in accordance with C standard), always use unsigned
> > > value as left operand of the _left_ shift.
> >
> > Right, that makes sense! In practice though, since we'll most likely
> > never use higher bits of *val2 with IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL_LOG2, would it be
> > enough to simply typecast?
> >
> > tmp = 1 << (unsigned int)*val2;
>
> No, it's about the _left_ operand.
> I haven't checked if tmp is 64-bit, then even that would be still wrong.

Okay so your recommendation is to not use a left shift?

I can look into that but given how unlikely it is to fall into those bad
cases, I'd rather keep things as they are. Would that be okay?

Also, I don't think using BIT() or BIT_ULL() would address this as they
both do the same shift, with no extra checks.

Cheers,
Liam

> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko