drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Two 32-bit values are being evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic and then
passed to s64 type. It is wrong. Expression should be evaluated using
64-bit arithmetic and then passed.
Fixes: 8f2b54824b ("drivers:iio:dac: Add AD3552R driver support")
Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
---
drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
index 97f13c0b9631..b03d3c7cd4c4 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
@@ -770,7 +770,7 @@ static void ad3552r_calc_gain_and_offset(struct ad3552r_desc *dac, s32 ch)
dac->ch_data[ch].scale_dec = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((s64)rem * 1000000,
65536);
- dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536, span, &rem);
+ dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536L, span, &rem);
tmp = (s64)rem * 1000000;
dac->ch_data[ch].offset_dec = div_s64(tmp, span);
}
--
2.30.2
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 5:59 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote: > > Two 32-bit values are being evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic and then > passed to s64 type. It is wrong. Expression should be evaluated using > 64-bit arithmetic and then passed. ... > dac->ch_data[ch].scale_dec = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((s64)rem * 1000000, > 65536); Shouldn't the above be fixed as well? Has anybody tried to compile on 32-bit arch this? > - dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536, span, &rem); > + dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536L, span, &rem); > tmp = (s64)rem * 1000000; > dac->ch_data[ch].offset_dec = div_s64(tmp, span); > } -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
On 12/22/21 11:49 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 5:59 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum > <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote: >> >> Two 32-bit values are being evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic and then >> passed to s64 type. It is wrong. Expression should be evaluated using >> 64-bit arithmetic and then passed. > > ... > >> dac->ch_data[ch].scale_dec = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((s64)rem * 1000000, >> 65536); > > Shouldn't the above be fixed as well? Has anybody tried to compile on > 32-bit arch this? No, it correct already. In this case, rem is being typecasted to s64 and then multiplied with a 32-bit number, 1000000. Thus 64-bit arithmetic is being performed here.
On 12/23/21 5:34 PM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On 12/22/21 11:49 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 5:59 PM Muhammad Usama Anjum >> <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote: >>> Two 32-bit values are being evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic and then >>> passed to s64 type. It is wrong. Expression should be evaluated using >>> 64-bit arithmetic and then passed. >> ... >> >>> dac->ch_data[ch].scale_dec = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((s64)rem * 1000000, >>> 65536); >> Shouldn't the above be fixed as well? Has anybody tried to compile on >> 32-bit arch this? > No, it correct already. In this case, rem is being typecasted to s64 and > then multiplied with a 32-bit number, 1000000. Thus 64-bit arithmetic is > being performed here. What Andy means is that this needs to be DIV_S64_ROUND_CLOSEST() to work on 32-bit platforms. But it is clearly unrelated to your change and should be in its own patch.
> >>> Two 32-bit values are being evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic and > >>> then passed to s64 type. It is wrong. Expression should be evaluated > >>> using 64-bit arithmetic and then passed. > >> ... > >> > >>> dac->ch_data[ch].scale_dec = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((s64)rem * > 1000000, > >>> 65536); > >> Shouldn't the above be fixed as well? Has anybody tried to compile on > >> 32-bit arch this? > > No, it correct already. In this case, rem is being typecasted to s64 > > and then multiplied with a 32-bit number, 1000000. Thus 64-bit > > arithmetic is being performed here. > > What Andy means is that this needs to be DIV_S64_ROUND_CLOSEST() to > work on 32-bit platforms. But it is clearly unrelated to your change and should > be in its own patch. Indeed, I didn't test it on 32 bits. But both changes make sense to me. Regards, Mihail
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 12:20:32AM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> Two 32-bit values are being evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic and then
> passed to s64 type. It is wrong. Expression should be evaluated using
> 64-bit arithmetic and then passed.
>
> Fixes: 8f2b54824b ("drivers:iio:dac: Add AD3552R driver support")
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
> ---
> drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
> index 97f13c0b9631..b03d3c7cd4c4 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
> @@ -770,7 +770,7 @@ static void ad3552r_calc_gain_and_offset(struct ad3552r_desc *dac, s32 ch)
> dac->ch_data[ch].scale_dec = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((s64)rem * 1000000,
> 65536);
>
> - dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536, span, &rem);
> + dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536L, span, &rem);
"v_min" is relatively close to zero on a number line so this can't
overflow. There is no way that this change affects anything at runtime
(except making the code a tiny tiny bit slower).
And it should be 65536LL for 32 bit systems?
But I just don't see the point of this change. Presumably it is to make
a static analyzer happy?
regards,
dan carpenter
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 2:39 PM
> To: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
> Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>; Hennerich, Michael
> <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>; Jonathan Cameron
> <jic23@kernel.org>; Chindris, Mihail <Mihail.Chindris@analog.com>;
> open list:IIO SUBSYSTEM AND DRIVERS <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>;
> open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; kernel@collabora.com;
> kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers:iio:dac make expression evaluation 64-bit
>
> [External]
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 12:20:32AM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum
> wrote:
> > Two 32-bit values are being evaluated using 32-bit arithmetic and
> then
> > passed to s64 type. It is wrong. Expression should be evaluated using
> > 64-bit arithmetic and then passed.
> >
> > Fixes: 8f2b54824b ("drivers:iio:dac: Add AD3552R driver support")
> > Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum
> <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
> > index 97f13c0b9631..b03d3c7cd4c4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ad3552r.c
> > @@ -770,7 +770,7 @@ static void
> ad3552r_calc_gain_and_offset(struct ad3552r_desc *dac, s32 ch)
> > dac->ch_data[ch].scale_dec = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST((s64)rem
> * 1000000,
> > 65536);
> >
> > - dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536,
> span, &rem);
> > + dac->ch_data[ch].offset_int = div_s64_rem(v_min * 65536L,
> span, &rem);
>
> "v_min" is relatively close to zero on a number line so this can't
> overflow. There is no way that this change affects anything at runtime
> (except making the code a tiny tiny bit slower).
>
> And it should be 65536LL for 32 bit systems?
>
If I'm not missing nothing obvious, 65536LL is the right thing to do...
I did not really checked, but if v_min * 65536 can never overflow,
then yeah, this is not really "fixing" nothing.
- Nuno Sá
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.