On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 4:58 PM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> 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);
>

Reviewed-by: Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidiana...@linaro.org>

Reply via email to