Re: [PATCH v3] hw/intc/sifive_clint: Fix overflow in sifive_clint_write_timecmp()

[Alistair Francis]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:19 PM David Hoppenbrouwers <david@salt-inc.org> wrote:
>
> `muldiv64` would overflow in cases where the final 96-bit value does not
> fit in a `uint64_t`. This would result in small values that cause an
> interrupt to be triggered much sooner than intended.
>
> The overflow can be detected in most cases by checking if the new value is
> smaller than the previous value. If the final result is larger than
> `diff` it is either correct or it doesn't matter as it is effectively
> infinite anyways.
>
> `next` is an `uint64_t` value, but `timer_mod` takes an `int64_t`. This
> resulted in high values such as `UINT64_MAX` being converted to `-1`,
> which caused an immediate timer interrupt.
>
> By limiting `next` to `INT64_MAX` no overflow will happen while the
> timer will still be effectively set to "infinitely" far in the future.
>
> Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/493
> Signed-off-by: David Hoppenbrouwers <david@salt-inc.org>
> ---
> I did not account for the multiplication overflow mentioned in the bug
> report. I've amended the patch and I do not spot any erroneous interrupts
> anymore.
>
> I see that the previous patch already got applied to
> riscv-to-apply.next. Do I need to create a new patch?

I have just removed that patch, so this is fine.

>
> David
>
>  hw/intc/sifive_clint.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/intc/sifive_clint.c b/hw/intc/sifive_clint.c
> index 0f41e5ea1c..aa76e639a9 100644
> --- a/hw/intc/sifive_clint.c
> +++ b/hw/intc/sifive_clint.c
> @@ -59,8 +59,23 @@ static void sifive_clint_write_timecmp(RISCVCPU *cpu, 
> uint64_t value,
>      riscv_cpu_update_mip(cpu, MIP_MTIP, BOOL_TO_MASK(0));
>      diff = cpu->env.timecmp - rtc_r;
>      /* back to ns (note args switched in muldiv64) */
> -    next = qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) +
> -        muldiv64(diff, NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND, timebase_freq);
> +    uint64_t ns_diff = muldiv64(diff, NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND, timebase_freq);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * check if ns_diff overflowed and check if the addition would 
> potentially
> +     * overflow
> +     */
> +    if ((NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND > timebase_freq && ns_diff < diff) ||
> +        ns_diff > INT64_MAX) {
> +        next = INT64_MAX;
> +    } else {
> +        /*
> +         * as it is very unlikely qemu_clock_get_ns will return a value
> +         * greater than INT64_MAX, no additional check is needed.
> +         */
> +        next = qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) + ns_diff;

What if ns_diff is INT64_MAX, won't this overflow?

Alistair

> +    }
> +
>      timer_mod(cpu->env.timer, next);
>  }
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>