From c67f7580697198800c57ced59f1dfbce1aaeb4ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Maydell Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:41:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] hw/misc/pca9554: Correct error check bounds in get/set pin functions In pca9554_get_pin() and pca9554_set_pin(), we try to detect an incorrect pin value, but we get the condition wrong, using ">" when ">=" was intended. This has no actual effect, because in pca9554_initfn() we use the correct test when creating the properties and so we'll never be called with an out of range value. However, Coverity complains about the mismatch between the check and the later use of the pin value in a shift operation. Use the correct condition. Resolves: Coverity CID 1534917 Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth Message-id: 20240312183810.557768-5-peter.maydell@linaro.org --- hw/misc/pca9554.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/misc/pca9554.c b/hw/misc/pca9554.c index 778b32e443..5e31696797 100644 --- a/hw/misc/pca9554.c +++ b/hw/misc/pca9554.c @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ static void pca9554_get_pin(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char *name, error_setg(errp, "%s: error reading %s", __func__, name); return; } - if (pin < 0 || pin > PCA9554_PIN_COUNT) { + if (pin < 0 || pin >= PCA9554_PIN_COUNT) { error_setg(errp, "%s invalid pin %s", __func__, name); return; } @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ static void pca9554_set_pin(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char *name, error_setg(errp, "%s: error reading %s", __func__, name); return; } - if (pin < 0 || pin > PCA9554_PIN_COUNT) { + if (pin < 0 || pin >= PCA9554_PIN_COUNT) { error_setg(errp, "%s invalid pin %s", __func__, name); return; }