On 05/16/2018 01:23 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 May 2018 at 16:16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 05/16/2018 03:03 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>>> Coverity points out that this can overflow if n > 31,
>>> because it's only doing 32-bit arithmetic. Let's use 1ULL instead
>>> of 1. Also the formulae used to compute n can be replaced by
>>> the level_shift() macro.
>>
>> This level_shift() replacement doesn't seems that obvious to me, can you
>> split it in another patch?
>>
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/arm/smmu-common.c | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/smmu-common.c b/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
>>> index 01c7be8..3c5f724 100644
>>> --- a/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
>>> +++ b/hw/arm/smmu-common.c
>>> @@ -83,9 +83,9 @@ static inline hwaddr get_table_pte_address(uint64_t pte,
>>> int granule_sz)
>>> static inline hwaddr get_block_pte_address(uint64_t pte, int level,
>>> int granule_sz, uint64_t *bsz)
>>> {
>>> - int n = (granule_sz - 3) * (4 - level) + 3;
>>> + int n = level_shift(level, granule_sz);
>>
>> Shouldn't this be level_shift(level + 1, granule_sz)?
>
> No. The two expressions are equivalent, they're
> just arranged differently:
>
> level_shift(lvl, gsz)
> == gsz + (3 - lvl) * (gsz - 3)
> == gsz + (4 - lvl) * (gsz - 3) - (gsz - 3)
> == gsz - gsz + (4 - lvl) * (gsz - 3) + 3
> == (gsz - 3) * (4 - lvl) + 3
Argh I failed this middle school demonstrations...
Thanks Peter :)
So for the much cleaner level_shift() use:
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
