On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 11:48, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:26:15AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 23:30, Richard Henderson
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7/26/22 09:32, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > Coverity complains that in functions like pci_set_wo
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:26:15AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 23:30, Richard Henderson
> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/26/22 09:32, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > Coverity complains that in functions like pci_set_word_by_mask()
> > > we might end up shifting by more than 31 bits. This
On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 23:30, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>
> On 7/26/22 09:32, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > Coverity complains that in functions like pci_set_word_by_mask()
> > we might end up shifting by more than 31 bits. This is true,
> > but only if the caller passes in a zero mask. Help Coverity ou
On 7/26/22 09:32, Peter Maydell wrote:
Coverity complains that in functions like pci_set_word_by_mask()
we might end up shifting by more than 31 bits. This is true,
but only if the caller passes in a zero mask. Help Coverity out
by asserting that the mask argument is valid.
Fixes: CID 1487168
S
On 26/7/22 18:32, Peter Maydell wrote:
Coverity complains that in functions like pci_set_word_by_mask()
we might end up shifting by more than 31 bits. This is true,
but only if the caller passes in a zero mask. Help Coverity out
by asserting that the mask argument is valid.
Fixes: CID 1487168
S
Coverity complains that in functions like pci_set_word_by_mask()
we might end up shifting by more than 31 bits. This is true,
but only if the caller passes in a zero mask. Help Coverity out
by asserting that the mask argument is valid.
Fixes: CID 1487168
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell
---
Note tha
