From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42134)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <philippe.mathieu.daude@gmail.com>)
	id 1fJ2cF-0006rw-Py
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2018 16:01:40 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <philippe.mathieu.daude@gmail.com>)
	id 1fJ2cE-00039Z-Rs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 May 2018 16:01:39 -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>
	<2c55370d-fa43-12a1-5baf-ec7cf824c0dc@amsat.org>
	<CAFEAcA-GxScM9StKESYAqJ2sbiSH+hWjJXvF7COjJPojs5J5QQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= <f4bug@amsat.org>
Message-ID: <8324a612-8785-9db9-b0d4-ab943645a16d@amsat.org>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:01:28 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-GxScM9StKESYAqJ2sbiSH+hWjJXvF7COjJPojs5J5QQ@mail.gmail.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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>, Eric Auger <eric.auger.pro@gmail.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, qemu-arm <qemu-arm@nongnu.org>

On 05/16/2018 01:23 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 May 2018 at 16:16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> wrote:
>> 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)?
> 
> No. The two expressions are equivalent, they're
> just arranged differently:
> 
>    level_shift(lvl, gsz)
>       == gsz + (3 - lvl) * (gsz - 3)
>       == gsz + (4 - lvl) * (gsz - 3) - (gsz - 3)
>       == gsz - gsz + (4 - lvl) * (gsz - 3) + 3
>       == (gsz - 3) * (4 - lvl) + 3

Argh I failed this middle school demonstrations...

Thanks Peter :)

So for the much cleaner level_shift() use:
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>