[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] target/arm: Clean up arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller asserts
From: |
Alex Bennée |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] target/arm: Clean up arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller asserts |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 15:29:40 +0000 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.3.5; emacs 27.0.50 |
Richard Henderson <address@hidden> writes:
> Coverity reports, in sve_zcr_get_valid_len,
>
> "Subtract operation overflows on operands
> arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(cpu, start_vq + 1U) and 1U"
>
> First, fix the aarch32 stub version to not return 0, but to
> simply assert unreachable. Because that nonsense return value
> does exactly what Coverity reports.
>
> Second, 1 is the minimum value that can be returned from the
> aarch64 version of arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller, but that is
> non-obvious from the set of asserts in the function. Begin by
> asserting that 2 is the minimum input, and finish by asserting
> that we did in fact find a set bit in the bitmap. Bit 0 is
> always set, so we must be able to find that.
>
> Reported-by: Coverity (CID 1407217)
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <address@hidden>
> ---
> target/arm/cpu.h | 4 +++-
> target/arm/cpu64.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h
> index e1a66a2d1c..d89e727d7b 100644
> --- a/target/arm/cpu.h
> +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h
> @@ -190,7 +190,9 @@ uint32_t arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(ARMCPU *cpu,
> uint32_t vq);
> # define ARM_MAX_VQ 1
> static inline void arm_cpu_sve_finalize(ARMCPU *cpu, Error **errp) { }
> static inline uint32_t arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(ARMCPU *cpu, uint32_t vq)
> -{ return 0; }
> +{
> + g_assert_not_reached();
> +}
> #endif
>
> typedef struct ARMVectorReg {
> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu64.c b/target/arm/cpu64.c
> index 68baf0482f..83ff8c8713 100644
> --- a/target/arm/cpu64.c
> +++ b/target/arm/cpu64.c
> @@ -466,11 +466,18 @@ uint32_t arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(ARMCPU *cpu,
> uint32_t vq)
> * We allow vq == ARM_MAX_VQ + 1 to be input because the caller may want
> * to find the maximum vq enabled, which may be ARM_MAX_VQ, but this
> * function always returns the next smaller than the input.
> + *
> + * Similarly, vq == 2 is the minimum input because 1 is the minimum
> + * output that makes sense.
> */
> - assert(vq && vq <= ARM_MAX_VQ + 1);
> + assert(vq >= 2 && vq <= ARM_MAX_VQ + 1);
>
> bitnum = find_last_bit(cpu->sve_vq_map, vq - 1);
> - return bitnum == vq - 1 ? 0 : bitnum + 1;
> +
> + /* We always have vq == 1 present in sve_vq_map. */
> + assert(bitnum < vq - 1);
> +
> + return bitnum + 1;
> }
>
> static void cpu_max_get_sve_max_vq(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char *name,
--
Alex Bennée