Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965188AbeAKR2y (ORCPT + 1 other); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:28:54 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:35203 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932415AbeAKR2x (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:28:53 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotbgMiIwBo48XSj9w1lz7Wn1aPuzwAnO3WUI61OdSx86qqe2eCFmOemeTauTI+iax1ciNP8PtbSbLqCJshFlJM= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57ef28bd-41da-73c2-3004-f9b2ecd8b102@sondrel.com> References: <20180111133832.13125-1-nunojpg@gmail.com> <57ef28bd-41da-73c2-3004-f9b2ecd8b102@sondrel.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Nuno_Gon=C3=A7alves?= Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:28:31 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] 8250_dw: do not int overflow when rate can not be aplied To: Ed Blake Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: I have to disagree :) if (rate < i * min_rate) is true to i=a, then (rate >= i * min_rate && rate <= i * max_rate) will always be false for any i=b, where b>a. If this condition is true, it means the old condition would be always false for the remaining of the iteration. My patch "only" avoids integer overflow and terminates the search as soon as possible, since no need to search for bigger dividers if the current one would already mean a rate below min_rate (that it, this is the closer). So in fact we also break when the closer divider have been found. Thanks, Nuno On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Ed Blake wrote: > Hi Nuno, > > Thanks for reporting this and the patch. > > On 11/01/18 13:38, Nuno Goncalves wrote: >> When target_rate is big enough and not permitted in hardware, >> then i is looped to UART_DIV_MAX (0xFFFF), and i * max_rate will overflow >> (32b signed). >> >> A fix is to quit the loop early enough, as soon as rate < i * min_rate as it >> means the rate is not permitted. > > 'rate < i * min_rate' does not mean the rate is not permitted. clk_round_rate() gives the nearest achievable rate to the one requested, which may be lower than i * min_rate. This is not an error and in this case we want to continue the loop searching for an acceptable rate. > > >> >> This avoids arbitraty rates to be applied. Still in my hardware the max >> allowed rate (1500000) is aplied when a higher is requested. This seems a >> artifact of clk_round_rate which is not understood by me and independent of >> this fix. Might or might not be another bug. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nuno Goncalves >> --- >> drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_dw.c | 8 +++++++- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_dw.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_dw.c >> index 5bb0c42c88dd..a27ea916abbf 100644 >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_dw.c >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_dw.c >> @@ -267,7 +267,13 @@ static void dw8250_set_termios(struct uart_port *p, struct ktermios *termios, >> >> for (i = 1; i <= UART_DIV_MAX; i++) { >> rate = clk_round_rate(d->clk, i * target_rate); >> - if (rate >= i * min_rate && rate <= i * max_rate) >> + >> + if (rate < i * min_rate) { >> + i = UART_DIV_MAX + 1; >> + break; >> + } >> + >> + if (rate <= i * max_rate) >> break; >> } >> if (i <= UART_DIV_MAX) { > > -- > Ed >