Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Message-ID: <cf813067-9b73-4eca-8c0a-668fc68ca6b0@ancud.ru>
Date:   Wed, 22 Nov 2023 22:40:46 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: LPIT: fix u32 multiplication overflow
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
References: <430a1271-a45c-4f5a-90c7-a62703ac7cf4@ancud.ru>
 <CAJZ5v0gHgfscDCGo3P5JVn73uUTBkpfCqRJV3QcOnFt8FP7FhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0jGSSevWuBKFK0z+bQ2QB9+GT=ofnY=MF=53N-r7QEhSw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Nikita Kiryushin <kiryushin@ancud.ru>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0jGSSevWuBKFK0z+bQ2QB9+GT=ofnY=MF=53N-r7QEhSw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

My reasoning was around something like:

1) tsc_khz is declared as unsigned int tsc_khz;

2) tsc_khz * 1000 would overflow, if the result is larger, than an 
unsigned int could hold;

3) given tsc_khz * 1000 > UINT_MAX is bad, tsc_khz > UINT_MAX / 1000 is bad;

4) if UINT_MAX is 4294967295, than tsc_khz > 4294967.295 is bad, for 
example 4294968 would lead to overflow;

5) 4294968 kHz is 4294.968 MHz, which seems realistically high to me.

For me, tsc: Refined TSC clocksource calibration: 3393.624 MHz

(seems like, it is derived from the same value,

pr_info("Refined TSC clocksource calibration: %lu.%03lu MHz\n",
         (unsigned long)tsc_khz / 1000,
         (unsigned long)tsc_khz % 1000);

)

Not sure about the math above, but it seemed reasonable enough to me to 
switch to overflow-resilient arithmetic here.


On 11/21/23 23:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 8:56 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> That should be "hundreds of thousands of kHz", so I was mistaken.
>
> But anyway:
>
>> Why is it really a concern?
>>