Ping -- any opinions/review about this one? -- PMM
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 at 18:43, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > In framebuffer_update_display(), Coverity complains because we > multiply two values of type 'int' (which will be done as a 32x32 > multiply and so in theory might overflow) and then add the result to > a ram_addr_t, which can be 64 bits. > > 4GB framebuffers are not plausible anyway, but keep Coverity happy > by adding casts which force these multiplies to be done as 64x64. > > Coverity: CID 1487248 > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > --- > This is one of those ones where I'm on the fence about sticking > in the cast vs just marking it a false-positive. > --- > hw/display/framebuffer.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/display/framebuffer.c b/hw/display/framebuffer.c > index 4485aa335bb..b4296e8a33e 100644 > --- a/hw/display/framebuffer.c > +++ b/hw/display/framebuffer.c > @@ -95,9 +95,9 @@ void framebuffer_update_display( > } > first = -1; > > - addr += i * src_width; > - src += i * src_width; > - dest += i * dest_row_pitch; > + addr += (uint64_t)i * src_width; > + src += (uint64_t)i * src_width; > + dest += (uint64_t)i * dest_row_pitch; > > snap = memory_region_snapshot_and_clear_dirty(mem, addr, src_width * > rows, > DIRTY_MEMORY_VGA);
