On 6/25/19 9:48 AM, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 24.06.2019 23:58, schrieb Colin King:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com>
>>
>> There is a potential integer overflow when int 2 is left shifted
>> as this is evaluated using 32 bit arithmetic but is being used in
>> a context that expects an expression of type s64. Fix this by
>> shifting 2ULL to avoid a 32 bit overflow.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unintentional integer overflow")
>> Fixes: 8a99e9faa131 ("media: vivid: add HDMI (dis)connect RX emulation")
>> Fixes: 79a792dafac6 ("media: vivid: add HDMI (dis)connect TX emulation")
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-ctrls.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-ctrls.c
>> b/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-ctrls.c
>> index 3e916c8befb7..8f340cfd6993 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-ctrls.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-ctrls.c
>> @@ -1634,8 +1634,8 @@ int vivid_create_controls(struct vivid_dev *dev, bool
>> show_ccs_cap,
>> 0, V4L2_DV_RGB_RANGE_AUTO);
>> dev->ctrl_rx_power_present = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(hdl_vid_cap,
>> NULL, V4L2_CID_DV_RX_POWER_PRESENT, 0,
>> - (2 << (dev->num_hdmi_inputs - 1)) - 1, 0,
>> - (2 << (dev->num_hdmi_inputs - 1)) - 1);
>> + (2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_inputs - 1)) - 1, 0,
>> + (2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_inputs - 1)) - 1);
>>
>> }
>> if (dev->num_hdmi_outputs) {
>> @@ -1653,16 +1653,16 @@ int vivid_create_controls(struct vivid_dev *dev,
>> bool show_ccs_cap,
>> &vivid_ctrl_display_present, NULL);
>> dev->ctrl_tx_hotplug = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(hdl_vid_out,
>> NULL, V4L2_CID_DV_TX_HOTPLUG, 0,
>> - (2 << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1, 0,
>> - (2 << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1);
>> + (2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1, 0,
>> + (2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1);
>> dev->ctrl_tx_rxsense = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(hdl_vid_out,
>> NULL, V4L2_CID_DV_TX_RXSENSE, 0,
>> - (2 << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1, 0,
>> - (2 << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1);
>> + (2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1, 0,
>> + (2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1);
>> dev->ctrl_tx_edid_present = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(hdl_vid_out,
>> NULL, V4L2_CID_DV_TX_EDID_PRESENT, 0,
>> - (2 << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1, 0,
>> - (2 << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1);
>> + (2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1, 0,
>> + (2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1);
>> }
>> if ((dev->has_vid_cap && dev->has_vid_out) ||
>> (dev->has_vbi_cap && dev->has_vbi_out))
>
>
> To make this more readable for humans, it could help to store
> (2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1 in an intermediate.
> like:
> s64 hdmi=(2ULL << (dev->num_hdmi_outputs - 1)) - 1;
>
> dev->ctrl_tx_edid_present = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(hdl_vid_out,
> NULL, V4L2_CID_DV_TX_EDID_PRESENT, 0,
> hdmi, 0,hdmi);
>
>
> just my 2 cents,
I agree. Call it hdmi_output/input_mask, that is a good name for it.
Regards,
Hans
