>>> On 22.08.16 at 13:37, wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 06:00:12AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 19.08.16 at 12:09, wrote:
>> > On 19/08/16 09:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > On 19.08.16 at 10:06, wrote:
>> >>> ---
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 06:00:12AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 19.08.16 at 12:09, wrote:
> > On 19/08/16 09:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 19.08.16 at 10:06, wrote:
> >>> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
> >>> +++
>>> On 19.08.16 at 12:09, wrote:
> On 19/08/16 09:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.08.16 at 10:06, wrote:
>>> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
>>> +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/hvmloader.c
>>> @@ -272,8 +272,8 @@ const struct
On 19/08/16 09:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.08.16 at 10:06, wrote:
>> Coverity complains:
>>
>> overflow_before_widen: Potentially overflowing expression
>> info->nr_modules * 32U with type unsigned int (32 bits, unsigned) is
>> evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic, and
>>> On 19.08.16 at 10:06, wrote:
> Coverity complains:
>
> overflow_before_widen: Potentially overflowing expression
> info->nr_modules * 32U with type unsigned int (32 bits, unsigned) is
> evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic, and then used in a context that
> expects an
Coverity complains:
overflow_before_widen: Potentially overflowing expression
info->nr_modules * 32U with type unsigned int (32 bits, unsigned) is
evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic, and then used in a context that
expects an expression of type uint64_t (64 bits, unsigned).
The overflow is