Skip to content

[GPU] Fix coverity issue #32531

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 27, 2025
Merged

[GPU] Fix coverity issue #32531

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 7 additions & 8 deletions src/plugins/intel_gpu/src/graph/common_utils/jit_term.hpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -220,17 +220,16 @@ inline JitTerm operator/(const JitTerm& lhs, const JitTerm& rhs) {
return JitTerm{"(" + lhs.str() + " / " + rhs.str() + ")"};
}
inline JitTerm operator%(const JitTerm& lhs, const JitTerm& rhs) {
OPENVINO_ASSERT(rhs.str() != "0");
if (rhs.str() == "1" || rhs.str() == "-1") {
return JitTerm{"0"};
}

if (is_number(lhs) && is_number(rhs)) {
if (is_number(rhs)) {
auto rhs_val = as_number<int64_t>(rhs);
OPENVINO_ASSERT(rhs_val != 0, "Modulo by zero detected in operator%");
return JitTerm{std::to_string(as_number<int64_t>(lhs) % rhs_val)};
if (rhs_val == 1 || rhs_val == -1) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see any overflow issue here, is this really not a false positive?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To get INT64_MIN % -1, the program first does INT64_MIN / -1, which gives +2^63. But that number is too big for an int64_t, so it overflows. We need to handle 1 and -1 anyway. Previously, we used strings for exceptions, but now it's changed to use numbers. Indeed, I don’t think this issue will actually happen, but Coverity still flags it as a problem.

return JitTerm{"0"};
}
if (is_number(lhs)) {
return JitTerm{std::to_string(as_number<int64_t>(lhs) % rhs_val)};
}
}

return JitTerm{"(" + lhs.str() + " % " + rhs.str() + ")"};
}
inline JitTerm operator++(JitTerm& t, int) {
Expand Down
Loading