On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 11:36 AM Atish Kumar Patra <ati...@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:12 PM Alistair Francis <alistai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 6:33 PM Atish Patra <ati...@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > Coverity complained about the possible out-of-bounds access with > > > counter_virt/counter_virt_prev because these two arrays are > > > accessed with privilege mode. However, these two arrays are accessed > > > only when virt is enabled. Thus, the privilege mode can't be M mode. > > > > > > Add the asserts anyways to detect any wrong usage of these arrays > > > in the future. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <ati...@rivosinc.com> > > > > Fixes: Coverity CID 1558459 > > Fixes: Coverity CID 1558462 > > > > I think one of the Coverity issues was about the get_field issue in > the other thread? > This doesn't necessarily fix the coverity issue also as the issue > reported is a false positive. > But I don't mind citing the coverity issues as it is reported by that. > > Is there a link to both coverity issues to know which issue describes > the out-of-bound access one ?
I don't think so. I can see the report though and I think it should be both of them. They are hard to read, but they both seem relevant. 1558462 is the confusing one, but it has CID 1558462: Memory - corruptions (OVERRUN) >>> Overrunning callee's array of size 2 by passing argument "env->priv" >>> (which evaluates to 2) in call to "riscv_cpu_set_mode". so I think this should fix it Alistair
