Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v2 2/2] i6300esb: Fix signed integer overflow

[David Gibson]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:54:39AM +0100, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, David Gibson wrote:
> >If the guest programs a sufficiently large timeout value an integer
> >overflow can occur in i6300esb_restart_timer().  e.g. if the maximum
> >possible timer preload value of 0xfffff is programmed then we end up with
> >the calculation:
> >
> >timeout = get_ticks_per_sec() * (0xfffff << 15) / 33000000;
> >
> >get_ticks_per_sec() returns 1000000000 (10^9) giving:
> >
> >    10^9 * (0xfffff * 2^15) == 0x1dcd632329b000000 (65 bits)
> >
> >Obviously the division by 33MHz brings it back under 64-bits, but the
> >overflow has already occurred.
> >
> >Since signed integer overflow has undefined behaviour in C, in theory this
> >could be arbitrarily bad.  In practice, the overflowed value wraps around
> >to something negative, causing the watchdog to immediately expire, killing
> >the guest, which is still fairly bad.
> >
> >The bug can be triggered by running a Linux guest, loading the i6300esb
> >driver with parameter "heartbeat=2046" and opening /dev/watchdog.  The
> >watchdog will trigger as soon as the device is opened.
> >
> >This patch corrects the problem by using muldiv64(), which effectively
> >allows a 128-bit intermediate value between the multiplication and
> >division.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> >---
> >hw/watchdog/wdt_i6300esb.c | 10 ++++++++--
> >1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/hw/watchdog/wdt_i6300esb.c b/hw/watchdog/wdt_i6300esb.c
> >index e694fa9..c7316f5 100644
> >--- a/hw/watchdog/wdt_i6300esb.c
> >+++ b/hw/watchdog/wdt_i6300esb.c
> >@@ -125,8 +125,14 @@ static void i6300esb_restart_timer(I6300State *d, int 
> >stage)
> >    else
> >        timeout <<= 5;
> >
> >-    /* Get the timeout in units of ticks_per_sec. */
> >-    timeout = get_ticks_per_sec() * timeout / 33000000;
> >+    /* Get the timeout in units of ticks_per_sec.
> >+     *
> >+     * ticks_per_sec is typically 10^9 == 0x3B9ACA00 (30 bits), with
> >+     * 20 bits of user supplied preload, and 15 bits of scale, the
> >+     * multiply here can exceed 64-bits, before we divide by 33MHz, so
> >+     * we use a 128-bit temporary
> >+     */
> 
> Is the comment still correct saying "we use a 128-bit temporary" when the
> code does not do that explicitely any more?

Bother.  I fixed the commit message, but not this comment.  It's still
kind of correct, in that muldiv64 does effectively have a 128-bit
temporary internally.  Not quite what I meant, and a little misleading
though.

Paolo, worth fixing?

-- 
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

pgpaz7M5_3aiB.pgp
Description: PGP signature