Re: [PATCH] x86/lib: Fix num_digits() signed overflow for INT_MIN

[David Desobry <david.desobry@formalgen.com>]

Fair point! I've sent a v2 that replaces the loop with a switch 
statement (using GCC ranges). It's faster, handles INT_MIN properly via 
an unsigned cast, and I've cleaned up that mobile-submission comment 
while I was at it.

Le 20/01/2026 à 17:23, H. Peter Anvin a écrit :
> On January 20, 2026 1:42:58 AM PST, David Desobry <david.desobry@formalgen.com> wrote:
>> In num_digits(), the negation of the input value "val = -val"
>> causes undefined behavior when val is INT_MIN, as its absolute
>> value cannot be represented as a signed 32-bit integer.
>>
>> This leads to incorrect results (returning 2 instead of 11).
>> By promoting the value to long long before negation, we ensure
>> the absolute value is correctly handled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Desobry <david.desobry@formalgen.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/lib/misc.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/misc.c b/arch/x86/lib/misc.c
>> index 40b81c338ae5..c975db6ccb9f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/lib/misc.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/misc.c
>> @@ -8,15 +8,16 @@
>>   */
>> int num_digits(int val)
>> {
>> +	long long v = val;
>> 	long long m = 10;
>> 	int d = 1;
>>
>> -	if (val < 0) {
>> +	if (v < 0) {
>> 		d++;
>> -		val = -val;
>> +		v = -v;
>> 	}
>>
>> -	while (val >= m) {
>> +	while (v >= m) {
>> 		m *= 10;
>> 		d++;
>> 	}
> That has got to be the dumbest possible implementation of that task, bug or no bug.
>
> A switch statement would be simpler and faster.