lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] poll/select: avoid arithmetic overflow in __estimate_accuracy()
From
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:29:21PM +0200, Guillaume Knispel wrote:
>>__estimate_accuracy() was prone to integer overflow, for example
>>if *tv == {2147, 483648000} on a 32 bit computer (or even for delays
>>as small as {429, 500000000} if the task is niced).
>>
>>Because the result was already forced between 0 and 100ms, the effect
>>of the overflow was not too problematic, but the use of the hrtimer
>>range feature was not optimal in overflow cases.
>>
>>This patch ensures that there can not be an integer overflow in this
>>function.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Guillaume Knispel <gknispel@proformatique.com>
>>---
>> fs/select.c | 14 ++++++++++----
>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/fs/select.c b/fs/select.c
>>index 8084834..a201fc3 100644
>>--- a/fs/select.c
>>+++ b/fs/select.c
>>@@ -41,22 +41,28 @@
>> * better solutions..
>> */
>>
>>+#define MAX_SLACK (100 * NSEC_PER_MSEC)
>>+
>> static long __estimate_accuracy(struct timespec *tv)
>> {
>> long slack;
>> int divfactor = 1000;
>>
>>+ if (tv->tv_sec < 0)
>>+ return 0;
>>+
>> if (task_nice(current) > 0)
>> divfactor = divfactor / 5;
>>
>>+ if (tv->tv_sec > MAX_SLACK / (NSEC_PER_SEC/divfactor))
>>+ return MAX_SLACK;
>>+
>
>
> Yes? Isn't MAX_SLACK also too big for 'long' on 32bit machine?
>
> Try:
>
> % printf "%d\n" "100*1000000000 > 0x7fffffff"
> 1
>
> Am I missing something here?

100 * NSEC_PER_MSEC => 100 * 1000000
-

The exact same multiplication was already in the existing code,
and this is not the one that can overflow.


Cheers,
Guillaume Knispel



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-17 13:23    [W:0.044 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site