On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 16:55, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>
> Coverity warns that "ssi_transfer(s->spi, 0U) << 8 * i" might overflow
> because the expression is evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic and then
> used in a context expecting a uint64_t.
Would it make sense to also place a limit on "size"?
assert(size < something)
>
> Fixes: Coverity CID 1487244
> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater
> ---
> hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c b/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
> index d2b1dde604e3..26640539ae64 100644
> --- a/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
> +++ b/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
> @@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ static uint64_t aspeed_smc_flash_read(void *opaque,
> hwaddr addr, unsigned size)
> switch (aspeed_smc_flash_mode(fl)) {
> case CTRL_USERMODE:
> for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> -ret |= ssi_transfer(s->spi, 0x0) << (8 * i);
> +ret |= (uint64_t) ssi_transfer(s->spi, 0x0) << (8 * i);
> }
> break;
> case CTRL_READMODE:
> @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ static uint64_t aspeed_smc_flash_read(void *opaque,
> hwaddr addr, unsigned size)
> aspeed_smc_flash_setup(fl, addr);
>
> for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> -ret |= ssi_transfer(s->spi, 0x0) << (8 * i);
> +ret |= (uint64_t) ssi_transfer(s->spi, 0x0) << (8 * i);
> }
>
> aspeed_smc_flash_unselect(fl);
> --
> 2.35.3
>
