Skip to content

Commit d8794ac

Browse files
Jinjie Ruankuba-moo
authored andcommitted
posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()
As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(), and some drivers can remove the checks of itself. Cc: [email protected] Fixes: 0606f42 ("posix clocks: Introduce dynamic clocks") Acked-by: Richard Cochran <[email protected]> Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <[email protected]> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
1 parent 0b84db5 commit d8794ac

File tree

1 file changed

+3
-0
lines changed

1 file changed

+3
-0
lines changed

kernel/time/posix-clock.c

Lines changed: 3 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -318,6 +318,9 @@ static int pc_clock_settime(clockid_t id, const struct timespec64 *ts)
318318
goto out;
319319
}
320320

321+
if (!timespec64_valid_strict(ts))
322+
return -EINVAL;
323+
321324
if (cd.clk->ops.clock_settime)
322325
err = cd.clk->ops.clock_settime(cd.clk, ts);
323326
else

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)