There is an overflow in variable m in function num_digits when val
is >= 1410065408 which leads to the digit calculation loop to
iterate more times than required. This results in either more
digits being counted or in some cases (for example where val is
1932683193) the value of m eventually overflows to zero and the
while loop spins forever).
Currently the function num_digits is currently only being used for
small values of val in the SMP boot stage for digit counting on the
number of cpus and NUMA nodes, so the overflow is never encounterd.
However it is useful to fix the overflow issue in case the function
is used for other purposes in the future. (The issue was discovered
while investigating the digit counting performance in various
kernel helper functions rather than any real-world use-case).
The simplest fix is to make m a long int, the overhead in
multiplication speed for a long is very minor for small values
of val less than 10000 on modern processors. The alternative
fix is to replace the multiplication with a constant division
by 10 loop (this compiles down to an multiplication and shift)
without needing to make m a long int, but this is slightly slower
than the fix in this commit when measured on a range of x86
processors).
Fixes: 646e29a1789a ("x86: Improve the printout of the SMP bootup CPU table")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/lib/misc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/misc.c b/arch/x86/lib/misc.c
index 92cd8ecc3a2c..41e26e246d8f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/misc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/misc.c
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
*/
int num_digits(int val)
{
- int m = 10;
+ long m = 10;
int d = 1;
if (val < 0) {
--
2.39.2
On 11/1/23 08:32, Colin Ian King wrote:
> There is an overflow in variable m in function num_digits when val
> is >= 1410065408 which leads to the digit calculation loop to
> iterate more times than required. This results in either more
> digits being counted or in some cases (for example where val is
> 1932683193) the value of m eventually overflows to zero and the
> while loop spins forever).
>
> Currently the function num_digits is currently only being used for
> small values of val in the SMP boot stage for digit counting on the
> number of cpus and NUMA nodes, so the overflow is never encounterd.
encountered.
> However it is useful to fix the overflow issue in case the function
> is used for other purposes in the future. (The issue was discovered
> while investigating the digit counting performance in various
> kernel helper functions rather than any real-world use-case).
>
> The simplest fix is to make m a long int, the overhead in
> multiplication speed for a long is very minor for small values
> of val less than 10000 on modern processors. The alternative
> fix is to replace the multiplication with a constant division
> by 10 loop (this compiles down to an multiplication and shift)
> without needing to make m a long int, but this is slightly slower
> than the fix in this commit when measured on a range of x86
> processors).
>
> Fixes: 646e29a1789a ("x86: Improve the printout of the SMP bootup CPU table")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
num_digits() now works for all int values.
Thanks.
> ---
> arch/x86/lib/misc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/misc.c b/arch/x86/lib/misc.c
> index 92cd8ecc3a2c..41e26e246d8f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/misc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/misc.c
> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
> */
> int num_digits(int val)
> {
> - int m = 10;
> + long m = 10;
> int d = 1;
>
> if (val < 0) {
--
~Randy
On 11/1/23 08:32, Colin Ian King wrote:
...
> int num_digits(int val)
> {
> - int m = 10;
> + long m = 10;
> int d = 1;
>
> if (val < 0) {
Isn't this still broken on 32-bit where sizeof(long) == sizeof(int)?
Seems like we need 'm' to be able to hold values that are ~10x larger
than 'val' if we need this to work for the entire int range.
Also, performance doesn't matter here at *all* with the current use in
a couple of printk()'s. Just making 'm' 'long long' or u64 probably be
just fine.
On 02/11/2023 16:38, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/1/23 08:32, Colin Ian King wrote:
> ...
>> int num_digits(int val)
>> {
>> - int m = 10;
>> + long m = 10;
>> int d = 1;
>>
>> if (val < 0) {
>
> Isn't this still broken on 32-bit where sizeof(long) == sizeof(int)?
> Seems like we need 'm' to be able to hold values that are ~10x larger
> than 'val' if we need this to work for the entire int range.
Good point, long long is required for 32 bit,
sizes:
arch int long long long
i386 4 4 8
x86_64 4 8 8
I'll send a V2.
>
> Also, performance doesn't matter here at *all* with the current use in
> a couple of printk()'s. Just making 'm' 'long long' or u64 probably be
> just fine.