-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Mrzyglod, DanielX
T
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 1:41 PM
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>; Kobylinski,
MichalX [off-list ref]
Cc: thomas.monjalon@6wind.com; dev@dpdk.org;
david.marchand@6wind.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mem: fix overflowed return value

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen

Hemminger

quoted

Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:25 PM
To: Kobylinski, MichalX <redacted>
Cc: thomas.monjalon@6wind.com; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mem: fix overflowed return value

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:18 +0200
Michal Kobylinski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Fix issue reported by Coverity.

Coverity ID 13255: Overflowed return value: The return value will be too
small or even negative, likely resulting in unexpected behavior in a
caller that uses the return value. In rte_mem_virt2phy: An integer
overflow occurs, with the overflowed value used as the return value of
the function

Fixes: 3097de6e6bfb ("mem: get physical address of any pointer")

Signed-off-by: Michal Kobylinski <redacted>
---
 lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c

b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c

quoted

index 5b9132c..6ceca5b 100644

--- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c

@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ rte_mem_virt2phy(const void *virtaddr)
 	 * the pfn (page frame number) are bits 0-54 (see
 	 * pagemap.txt in linux Documentation)
 	 */
-	physaddr = ((page & 0x7fffffffffffffULL) * page_size)
+	physaddr = (uint64_t)((page & 0x7fffffffffffffULL) * page_size)
 		+ ((unsigned long)virtaddr % page_size);
 	close(fd);
 	return physaddr;

I am not trusting any of these Coverity patches you are sending.
It seems you think wraparound can be just fixed by casting, it can't

From my point of view it's False Possitive there is no chance that page_size
will be bigger than  long.
Coverity Assume that page_size may be 18446744071562067968 but it can't.

Only for glibc<2.1 we probably should change page_size = getpagesize();   to
page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
May I change this Coverity to False Positive or I missed something ? What's
your opinion ?

Hi David,
What is Your opinion about classifying this defect as false/positive? 
We would like to move forward with this work.

Michal