Commit a07fd74d authored by Denys Vlasenko's avatar Denys Vlasenko Committed by Jeff Kirsher
Browse files

e1000e: e1000e_cyclecounter_read(): fix er32(SYSTIML) overflow check



If two consecutive reads of the counter are the same, it is also
not an overflow.  "systimel_1 < systimel_2" should be
"systimel_1 <= systimel_2".

Before the patch, we could perform an *erroneous* correction:

Let's say that systimel_1 == systimel_2 == 0xffffffff.
"systimel_1 < systimel_2" is false, we think it's an overflow,
we read "systimeh = er32(SYSTIMH)" which meanwhile had incremented,
and use "(systimeh << 32) + systimel_2" value which is 2^32 too large.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDenys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
CC: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org
Tested-by: default avatarAaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
parent fb5277f2
......@@ -4287,7 +4287,7 @@ static cycle_t e1000e_cyclecounter_read(const struct cyclecounter *cc)
systimeh = er32(SYSTIMH);
systimel_2 = er32(SYSTIML);
/* Check for overflow. If there was no overflow, use the values */
if (systimel_1 < systimel_2) {
if (systimel_1 <= systimel_2) {
systim = (cycle_t)systimel_1;
systim |= (cycle_t)systimeh << 32;
} else {
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment