On 6/24/24 4:01 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 at 14:58, Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote:
On 6/24/24 2:18 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 10:35, Jamin Lin <jamin_...@aspeedtech.com> wrote:
Fix coverity defect: DIVIDE_BY_ZERO.
Signed-off-by: Jamin Lin <jamin_...@aspeedtech.com>
---
hw/arm/aspeed_ast27x0.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/hw/arm/aspeed_ast27x0.c b/hw/arm/aspeed_ast27x0.c
index b6876b4862..d14a46df6f 100644
--- a/hw/arm/aspeed_ast27x0.c
+++ b/hw/arm/aspeed_ast27x0.c
@@ -211,6 +211,12 @@ static void aspeed_ram_capacity_write(void *opaque, hwaddr
addr, uint64_t data,
ram_size = object_property_get_uint(OBJECT(&s->sdmc), "ram-size",
&error_abort);
+ if (!ram_size) {
+ qemu_log_mask(LOG_GUEST_ERROR,
+ "%s: ram_size is zero", __func__);
+ return;
+ }
+
Isn't this a QEMU bug rather than a guest error? The
RAM size presumably should never be zero unless the board
set the ram-size property on the SDMC incorrectly. So the
SDMC device should check (and return an error from its realize
method) that the ram-size property is valid,
That's the case in aspeed_sdmc_set_ram_size() which is called from
the aspeed machine init routine when the ram size is set.
True, but if the property is never set at all then the
struct field will be left at whatever value it had, which
is 0, I think. So if that's not valid then it either needs
to be a different default or else the realize method should
complain that the property was never set.
Ah, yes, and the issue has been there for while. I will send a separate
patch for this.
Thanks,
C.
