Re: [TF-A] New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware - TF-A

27 Jul 2020


      Hi Varun,
At this time not that I know of which is why we have the solution we have. I'm sure with enough investment of effort something can be done. If we were going to do that though I would personally prefer investigating integrating this tighter into the patch review tooling and report there before patch submitting but there too lies challenges interfacing to the online Coverity server offered as a free service to opensource projects.
Cheers
Joanna
On 22/07/2020, 18:09, "TF-A on behalf of Varun Wadekar via TF-A" <tf-a-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way to create a ticket and assign Coverity flagged issues to the code owner automatically?
-Varun
-----Original Message-----
    From: TF-A tf-a-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org On Behalf Of scan-admin--- via TF-A
    Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 8:17 AM
    To: tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org
    Subject: [TF-A] New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
Hi,
Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan.
3 new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan.
New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 3 of 3 defect(s)
** CID 360935:  Integer handling issues  (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
    /drivers/st/scmi-msg/clock.c: 273 in write_rate_desc_array_in_buffer()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    *** CID 360935:  Integer handling issues  (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
    /drivers/st/scmi-msg/clock.c: 273 in write_rate_desc_array_in_buffer()
    267             size_t n;
    268
    269             ASSERT_SYM_PTR_ALIGN(out);
    270
    271             for (n = 0U; n < nb_elt; n++) {
    272                     out[2 * n] = (uint32_t)rates[n];
    >>>     CID 360935:  Integer handling issues  (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
    >>>     "(uint64_t)rates[n] >> 32" is 0 regardless of the values of its operands. This occurs as the operand of assignment.
    273                     out[2 * n + 1] = (uint32_t)((uint64_t)rates[n] >> 32);
    274             }
    275     }
    276
    277     static void scmi_clock_describe_rates(struct scmi_msg *msg)
    278     {
** CID 360934:  Integer handling issues  (BAD_SHIFT)
    /drivers/st/scmi-msg/clock.c: 273 in write_rate_desc_array_in_buffer()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    *** CID 360934:  Integer handling issues  (BAD_SHIFT)
    /drivers/st/scmi-msg/clock.c: 273 in write_rate_desc_array_in_buffer()
    267             size_t n;
    268
    269             ASSERT_SYM_PTR_ALIGN(out);
    270
    271             for (n = 0U; n < nb_elt; n++) {
    272                     out[2 * n] = (uint32_t)rates[n];
    >>>     CID 360934:  Integer handling issues  (BAD_SHIFT)
    >>>     In expression "(uint64_t)rates[n] >> 32", right shifting "rates[n]" by more than 31 bits always yields zero.  The shift amount is 32.
    273                     out[2 * n + 1] = (uint32_t)((uint64_t)rates[n] >> 32);
    274             }
    275     }
    276
    277     static void scmi_clock_describe_rates(struct scmi_msg *msg)
    278     {
** CID 360933:  Integer handling issues  (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
    /drivers/st/scmi-msg/clock.c: 191 in scmi_clock_rate_get()
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    *** CID 360933:  Integer handling issues  (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
    /drivers/st/scmi-msg/clock.c: 191 in scmi_clock_rate_get()
    185                     return;
    186             }
    187
    188             rate = plat_scmi_clock_get_rate(msg->agent_id, clock_id);
    189
    190             return_values.rate[0] = (uint32_t)rate;
    >>>     CID 360933:  Integer handling issues  (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
    >>>     "(uint64_t)rate >> 32" is 0 regardless of the values of its operands. This occurs as the operand of assignment.
    191             return_values.rate[1] = (uint32_t)((uint64_t)rate >> 32);
    192
    193             scmi_write_response(msg, &return_values, sizeof(return_values));
    194     }
    195
    196     static void scmi_clock_rate_set(struct scmi_msg *msg)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P0...
--
    TF-A mailing list
    TF-A@lists.trustedfirmware.org
    https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a
    -- 
    TF-A mailing list
    TF-A@lists.trustedfirmware.org
    https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a