From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48028) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxAiL-0004D6-1y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:32:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxAiK-0007Je-7q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:32:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:32:01 -0500 (EST) From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <727460710.12150402.1447407121726.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1447161947-22542-1-git-send-email-rabin.vincent@axis.com> <564208B1.7050200@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] nand: fix address overflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Crosthwaite , Michael Tokarev Cc: Kevin Wolf , Rabin Vincent , qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , Rabin Vincent > > On 10/11/2015 14:25, Rabin Vincent wrote: > >> The shifts of the address mask and value shift beyond 32 bits when there > >> are 5 address cycles. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent > >> --- > >> hw/block/nand.c | 4 ++-- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/block/nand.c b/hw/block/nand.c > >> index 61d2cec..a68266f 100644 > >> --- a/hw/block/nand.c > >> +++ b/hw/block/nand.c > >> @@ -522,8 +522,8 @@ void nand_setio(DeviceState *dev, uint32_t value) > >> > >> if (s->ale) { > >> unsigned int shift = s->addrlen * 8; > >> - unsigned int mask = ~(0xff << shift); > >> - unsigned int v = value << shift; > >> + uint64_t mask = ~(0xffull << shift); > >> + uint64_t v = (uint64_t)value << shift; > >> > >> s->addr = (s->addr & mask) | v; > >> s->addrlen ++; > >> > > > > Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org > > Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini > > Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite > > This is a bugfix right? IIUC This would not have worked for accesses > to devices above column address 255 at all. Should this go to > stable/2.5? Yes, it should. Michael, are you planning to send another pull request during hard freeze? Paolo