Just do a quick check that the stolen memory address range doesn't
overflow our chosen integer type.
v2: Add add_overflows() to utils with the promise that gcc7 can do this
better than C and then maybe it will have a proper definition in core.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20170130134721.5159-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
base = tom - tseg_size - ggtt->stolen_size;
}
- if (base == 0)
+ if (base == 0 || add_overflows(base, ggtt->stolen_size))
return 0;
/* make sure we don't clobber the GTT if it's within stolen memory */
#ifndef __I915_UTILS_H
#define __I915_UTILS_H
+#if GCC_VERSION >= 70000
+#define add_overflows(A, B) \
+ __builtin_add_overflow_p((A), (B), (typeof((A) + (B)))0)
+#else
+#define add_overflows(A, B) ({ \
+ typeof(A) a = (A); \
+ typeof(B) b = (B); \
+ a + b < a; \
+})
+#endif
+
#define range_overflows(start, size, max) ({ \
typeof(start) start__ = (start); \
typeof(size) size__ = (size); \