linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] time: verify time values in adjtimex ADJ

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1512072106560.3595@nanos>
Date:	Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:15:45 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
cc:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time: verify time values in adjtimex ADJ_SETOFFSET to
 avoid overflow

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, John Stultz wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Richard Cochran
> <richardcochran@...il.com> wrote:
> > The overflow is a latent problem, and the patch should:
> >
> > 1. return error in case (txc->time.tv_usec >= USEC_PER_SEC)
> > 2. remove the redundant test in timekeeping_inject_offset.
> 
> So we probably want to keep the check in timekeeping_inject_offset()
> since there can be other users as well of that function.
> 
> But its probably cleanest to add a check in ntp_validate_timex()
> instead of where this patch does it.

So instead of open coding the checks on both sites, can we please have
an inline function with proper comments why time.tv_sec can be
negative, something like adjtimex_timeval_is_valid() or such.

Thanks,

	tglx




--
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/