[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1347402926-34813-4-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:35:26 -0400
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Zhouping Liu <zliu@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] 3.2.y: time: Move ktime_t overflow checking into timespec_valid_strict
This is a -stable backport of cee58483cf56e0ba355fdd97ff5e8925329aa936
Andreas Bombe reported that the added ktime_t overflow checking added to
timespec_valid in commit 4e8b14526ca7 ("time: Improve sanity checking of
timekeeping inputs") was causing problems with X.org because it caused
timeouts larger then KTIME_T to be invalid.
Previously, these large timeouts would be clamped to KTIME_MAX and would
never expire, which is valid.
This patch splits the ktime_t overflow checking into a new
timespec_valid_strict function, and converts the timekeeping codes
internal checking to use this more strict function.
Reported-and-tested-by: Andreas Bombe <aeb@...ian.org>
Cc: Zhouping Liu <zliu@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
---
include/linux/time.h | 7 +++++++
kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 10 +++++-----
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/time.h b/include/linux/time.h
index c8f7233..8c0216e 100644
--- a/include/linux/time.h
+++ b/include/linux/time.h
@@ -125,6 +125,13 @@ static inline bool timespec_valid(const struct timespec *ts)
/* Can't have more nanoseconds then a second */
if ((unsigned long)ts->tv_nsec >= NSEC_PER_SEC)
return false;
+ return true;
+}
+
+static inline bool timespec_valid_strict(const struct timespec *ts)
+{
+ if (!timespec_valid(ts))
+ return false;
/* Disallow values that could overflow ktime_t */
if ((unsigned long long)ts->tv_sec >= KTIME_SEC_MAX)
return false;
diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
index 59544dc..5ee1ac0 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ int do_settimeofday(const struct timespec *tv)
struct timespec ts_delta;
unsigned long flags;
- if (!timespec_valid(tv))
+ if (!timespec_valid_strict(tv))
return -EINVAL;
write_seqlock_irqsave(&xtime_lock, flags);
@@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ int timekeeping_inject_offset(struct timespec *ts)
timekeeping_forward_now();
tmp = timespec_add(xtime, *ts);
- if (!timespec_valid(&tmp)) {
+ if (!timespec_valid_strict(&tmp)) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto error;
}
@@ -591,7 +591,7 @@ void __init timekeeping_init(void)
struct timespec now, boot;
read_persistent_clock(&now);
- if (!timespec_valid(&now)) {
+ if (!timespec_valid_strict(&now)) {
pr_warn("WARNING: Persistent clock returned invalid value!\n"
" Check your CMOS/BIOS settings.\n");
now.tv_sec = 0;
@@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ void __init timekeeping_init(void)
}
read_boot_clock(&boot);
- if (!timespec_valid(&boot)) {
+ if (!timespec_valid_strict(&boot)) {
pr_warn("WARNING: Boot clock returned invalid value!\n"
" Check your CMOS/BIOS settings.\n");
boot.tv_sec = 0;
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ static void update_sleep_time(struct timespec t)
*/
static void __timekeeping_inject_sleeptime(struct timespec *delta)
{
- if (!timespec_valid(delta)) {
+ if (!timespec_valid_strict(delta)) {
printk(KERN_WARNING "__timekeeping_inject_sleeptime: Invalid "
"sleep delta value!\n");
return;
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists