From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57372)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <philippe.mathieu.daude@gmail.com>)
	id 1fIz6w-0007eG-IR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:17:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <philippe.mathieu.daude@gmail.com>)
	id 1fIz6t-0001r7-KL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2018 12:17:06 -0400
Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu=2DDaud=C3=A9?=
	<philippe.mathieu.daude@gmail.com>
References: <1526493784-25328-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@redhat.com>
	<1526493784-25328-3-git-send-email-eric.auger@redhat.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= <f4bug@amsat.org>
Message-ID: <2c55370d-fa43-12a1-5baf-ec7cf824c0dc@amsat.org>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:16:54 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1526493784-25328-3-git-send-email-eric.auger@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-arm] [PATCH 2/2] hw/arm/smmu-common: Fix
 coverity issue in get_block_pte_address
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, peter.maydell@linaro.org

Hi Eric,

On 05/16/2018 03:03 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> Coverity points out that this can overflow if n > 31,
> because it's only doing 32-bit arithmetic. Let's use 1ULL instead
> of 1. Also the formulae used to compute n can be replaced by
> the level_shift() macro.

This level_shift() replacement doesn't seems that obvious to me, can you
split it in another patch?

> 
> Reported-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> ---
>  hw/arm/smmu-common.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/arm/smmu-common.c b/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
> index 01c7be8..3c5f724 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
> @@ -83,9 +83,9 @@ static inline hwaddr get_table_pte_address(uint64_t pte, int granule_sz)
>  static inline hwaddr get_block_pte_address(uint64_t pte, int level,
>                                             int granule_sz, uint64_t *bsz)
>  {
> -    int n = (granule_sz - 3) * (4 - level) + 3;
> +    int n = level_shift(level, granule_sz);

Shouldn't this be level_shift(level + 1, granule_sz)?
Using level_shift() you replaced the trailing 3 by granule_sz. This
means the previous code was only correct for the granule_sz==3 case.

   level_shift(level + 1, granule_sz)
== (granule_sz - 3) * (3 - (level + 1)) + granule_sz;
== (granule_sz - 3) * (4 - level) + granule_sz;
!= (granule_sz - 3) * (4 - level) + 3;

>  
> -    *bsz = 1 << n;
> +    *bsz = 1ULL << n;

For the coverity fix (patch splitted):
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>

>      return PTE_ADDRESS(pte, n);
>  }
>  

Regards,

Phil.