Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-30 Thread Manfred Spraul
On 10/28/2016 09:29 PM, Colin Ian King wrote: On 28/10/16 20:21, Manfred Spraul wrote: Hi Colin, On 10/28/2016 08:11 PM, Colin King wrote: [...] --- a/ipc/sem.c +++ b/ipc/sem.c @@ -1839,7 +1839,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops, max = 0;

Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-30 Thread Manfred Spraul
On 10/28/2016 09:29 PM, Colin Ian King wrote: On 28/10/16 20:21, Manfred Spraul wrote: Hi Colin, On 10/28/2016 08:11 PM, Colin King wrote: [...] --- a/ipc/sem.c +++ b/ipc/sem.c @@ -1839,7 +1839,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops, max = 0;

Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-28 Thread Davidlohr Bueso
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Colin King wrote: Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-28 Thread Davidlohr Bueso
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Colin King wrote: Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-28 Thread Colin Ian King
On 28/10/16 20:21, Manfred Spraul wrote: > Hi Colin, > > On 10/28/2016 08:11 PM, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King >> >> The left shift amount is sop->sem_num % 64, which is up to 63, so >> ensure we are shifting a ULL rather than a 32 bit value. > Good catch,

Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-28 Thread Colin Ian King
On 28/10/16 20:21, Manfred Spraul wrote: > Hi Colin, > > On 10/28/2016 08:11 PM, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King >> >> The left shift amount is sop->sem_num % 64, which is up to 63, so >> ensure we are shifting a ULL rather than a 32 bit value. > Good catch, thanks. >> CoverityScan

Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-28 Thread Manfred Spraul
Hi Colin, On 10/28/2016 08:11 PM, Colin King wrote: From: Colin Ian King The left shift amount is sop->sem_num % 64, which is up to 63, so ensure we are shifting a ULL rather than a 32 bit value. Good catch, thanks. CoverityScan CID#1372862 "Bad bit shift

Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-28 Thread Manfred Spraul
Hi Colin, On 10/28/2016 08:11 PM, Colin King wrote: From: Colin Ian King The left shift amount is sop->sem_num % 64, which is up to 63, so ensure we are shifting a ULL rather than a 32 bit value. Good catch, thanks. CoverityScan CID#1372862 "Bad bit shift operation" Fixes: 7c24530cb4e3c0ae

[PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-28 Thread Colin King
From: Colin Ian King The left shift amount is sop->sem_num % 64, which is up to 63, so ensure we are shifting a ULL rather than a 32 bit value. CoverityScan CID#1372862 "Bad bit shift operation" Fixes: 7c24530cb4e3c0ae ("ipc/sem: optimize perform_atomic_semop()")

[PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit integer

2016-10-28 Thread Colin King
From: Colin Ian King The left shift amount is sop->sem_num % 64, which is up to 63, so ensure we are shifting a ULL rather than a 32 bit value. CoverityScan CID#1372862 "Bad bit shift operation" Fixes: 7c24530cb4e3c0ae ("ipc/sem: optimize perform_atomic_semop()") Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King