> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Mrzyglod, DanielX > T > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:41 PM > To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Kobylinski, > MichalX <michalx.kobylinski at intel.com> > Cc: thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com; dev at dpdk.org; > david.marchand at 6wind.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mem: fix overflowed return value > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen > Hemminger > >Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:25 PM > >To: Kobylinski, MichalX <michalx.kobylinski at intel.com> > >Cc: thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com; dev at dpdk.org > >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mem: fix overflowed return value > > > >On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:18 +0200 > >Michal Kobylinski <michalx.kobylinski at intel.com> wrote: > > > >> Fix issue reported by Coverity. > >> > >> Coverity ID 13255: Overflowed return value: The return value will be too > >> small or even negative, likely resulting in unexpected behavior in a > >> caller that uses the return value. In rte_mem_virt2phy: An integer > >> overflow occurs, with the overflowed value used as the return value of > >> the function > >> > >> Fixes: 3097de6e6bfb ("mem: get physical address of any pointer") > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michal Kobylinski <michalx.kobylinski at intel.com> > >> --- > >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > >b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > >> index 5b9132c..6ceca5b 100644 > >> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > >> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c > >> @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ rte_mem_virt2phy(const void *virtaddr) > >> * the pfn (page frame number) are bits 0-54 (see > >> * pagemap.txt in linux Documentation) > >> */ > >> - physaddr = ((page & 0x7fffffffffffffULL) * page_size) > >> + physaddr = (uint64_t)((page & 0x7fffffffffffffULL) * page_size) > >> + ((unsigned long)virtaddr % page_size); > >> close(fd); > >> return physaddr; > > > >I am not trusting any of these Coverity patches you are sending. > >It seems you think wraparound can be just fixed by casting, it can't > > From my point of view it's False Possitive there is no chance that page_size > will be bigger than long. > Coverity Assume that page_size may be 18446744071562067968 but it can't. > > Only for glibc<2.1 we probably should change page_size = getpagesize(); to > page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE); > May I change this Coverity to False Positive or I missed something ? What's > your opinion ?
Hi David, What is Your opinion about classifying this defect as false/positive? We would like to move forward with this work. Michal
