From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m16.mail.163.com (m16.mail.163.com [220.197.31.3]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250B91547D8; Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:32:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.3 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736177583; cv=none; b=j3NFmrzzaRSKHQXDwUiTjEPTf21FIm1kPe8As/hvUYwHgOh3raIy1StN0NGc7/HE9GQu0ia02GR3TuWGzUns7yKGOQHYhHEekLYeuCQ9H2h1WZpZLORHWIK6hNBUiuRM0xnP6RCmyplrBOy5sagyZWWJbM4US7GAmyvOov8HPE0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736177583; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QwtfqSO51xO1D9x2yyQfDQcuXwy+Ww+lg+g0rB6i6B0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=PnrJ51uQIaoFM8CO/gvhNKhDl0b5ySz8ajg+tgZf7kW6Aqm7E8dL2AN5jHB9bfviEDXtw9T7EGdF1uGlhcP8/x9do/SCr5EI+5bRAYYxq8C2weYl6z40EpVcV61GmPwZsLFtZac/XOhwASIW4KYKN0ROUXoNo2eGOzujFs/Kots= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b=jWR+rtf4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.3 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=163.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com header.i=@163.com header.b="jWR+rtf4" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From: Content-Type; bh=rPCnnRhz7MQDzkIKVe+DqZbqqV0ycd7ImcPXXjEEtNA=; b=jWR+rtf4SdZ+TLz0mLQnl8iuuqMdeqNNBRauHrIAU0Qsp256kOLz0OG/3Z4Wy9 TqQsUdWr2USxBrySGusBpqGOukQ4zbtJ+QkwfOHVOwu+T2oS814c3x7D37hAH6n0 V0utupTY0NcPdeIBHEEvPgLDwzaHk2m8x1Cx4fvTOSUOc= Received: from [192.168.71.44] (unknown []) by gzga-smtp-mtada-g0-1 (Coremail) with SMTP id _____wD3NxaR93tnTqZ+EA--.26530S2; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 23:32:34 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 23:32:33 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [v8] misc: pci_endpoint_test: Fix overflow of bar_size To: Niklas Cassel Cc: manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org, kw@linux.com, kishon@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rockswang7@gmail.com References: <20250104151652.1652181-1-18255117159@163.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Hans Zhang <18255117159@163.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CM-TRANSID:_____wD3NxaR93tnTqZ+EA--.26530S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoWxJrWxZrWUGr17KF13uw15urg_yoW8Kry3pF ZIkF4FyF40qFykGws7W3Z8CF9YyFZrXry7GFWDAw1SvrnxZFn5tF18Kry5Kr98uFnFvr10 yFnxJan8Z3W2yFJanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07jTQ6dUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: rpryjkyvrrlimvzbiqqrwthudrp/1tbiDwvMo2d78gaCxQAAsE On 2025/1/6 19:49, Niklas Cassel wrote: > Doing a: > $ git grep -A 10 "IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT" > does not show very many hits, which suggests that this is not the proper > way to solve this. > > I don't know the proper solution to this. How is resource_size_t handled > in other PCI driver when being built on with 32-bit PHYS_ADDR_T ? > > Can't you just cast the resource_size_t to u64 before doing the division? Hi Niklas, Modify as follows, if you have no opinion, I will fix the next version. >> --- >> drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c | 12 +++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c >> index 3aaaf47fa4ee..50d4616119af 100644 >> --- a/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c >> +++ b/drivers/misc/pci_endpoint_test.c >> @@ -280,10 +280,11 @@ static int pci_endpoint_test_bar_memcmp(struct pci_endpoint_test *test, >> static bool pci_endpoint_test_bar(struct pci_endpoint_test *test, >> enum pci_barno barno) >> { >> - int j, bar_size, buf_size, iters, remain; >> void *write_buf __free(kfree) = NULL; >> void *read_buf __free(kfree) = NULL; >> struct pci_dev *pdev = test->pdev; >> + int j, buf_size, iters, remain; >> + resource_size_t bar_size; Fix resource_size_t to u64 bar_size. u64 bar_size; >> >> if (!test->bar[barno]) >> return false; >> @@ -307,13 +308,18 @@ static bool pci_endpoint_test_bar(struct pci_endpoint_test *test, >> if (!read_buf) >> return false; >> >> - iters = bar_size / buf_size; >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT)) { >> + remain = do_div(bar_size, buf_size); >> + iters = bar_size; >> + } else { >> + iters = bar_size / buf_size; >> + remain = bar_size % buf_size; >> + } Removed IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT), Execute the following code. remain = do_div(bar_size, buf_size); iters = bar_size; >> for (j = 0; j < iters; j++) >> if (pci_endpoint_test_bar_memcmp(test, barno, buf_size * j, >> write_buf, read_buf, buf_size)) >> return false; >> >> - remain = bar_size % buf_size; >> if (remain) >> if (pci_endpoint_test_bar_memcmp(test, barno, buf_size * iters, >> write_buf, read_buf, remain)) >> >> base-commit: ccb98ccef0e543c2bd4ef1a72270461957f3d8d0 >> -- >> 2.25.1 >> Best regards Hans