On 25/06/2024 08:03, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 6/25/24 8:00 AM, cmd wrote:
Hi
On 25/06/2024 03:50, Jamin Lin via wrote:
Coverity reports a possible DIVIDE_BY_ZERO issue regarding the
"ram_size" object property. This can not happen because RAM has
predefined valid sizes per SoC. Nevertheless, add a test to
close the issue.
Fixes: Coverity CID 1547113
Signed-off-by: Jamin Lin <jamin_...@aspeedtech.com>
Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@redhat.com>
[ clg: Rewrote commit log ]
Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@redhat.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;
+ }
+
If we are sure that the error cannot happen, shouldn't we assert
instead?
Yes. That is what Peter suggested. This needs to be changed.
Thanks,
C.
Ok fine, I didn't see the message, sorry!
Thanks
>cmd
/*
* Emulate ddr capacity hardware behavior.
* If writes the data to the address which is beyond the ram
size,
