On 13.08.2025 14:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 12:47:37PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 12/08/2025 4:06 pm, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> >> >> Not this patch, but this is probably the best place to report it. >> >> https://scan5.scan.coverity.com/#/project-view/30554/10426?selectedIssue=1662707 >> >> Something you did in the series made enough changes in >> pfn_pdx_compression_setup() for Coverity to start reporting an issue in >> some decade-old code. >> >> The complaint is on line: >> >> 277 ma_va_bottom_mask = (PAGE_SIZE << bottom_shift) - 1; >> CID 1662707: (#1 of 1): Bad bit shift operation (BAD_SHIFT) >> >> 34. large_shift: In expression 0x1000 << bottom_shift, left shifting by more >> than 31 bits >> has undefined behavior. The shift amount, bottom_shift, is as much as 63. >> >> >> The relevant part of earlier analysis seems to be the "i >= >> BITS_PER_LONG" check in the order loop, causing Coverity to think that i >> can be up to 63. > > Yes, I've also got the email. This is existing code, so the issue > wasn't introduced by the previous patches, it's probably result of > the code movement that Coverity picked it up. > > I will send a patch to fix this.
Isn't it simply because this file is now also built for a toolstack side test? Jan
