[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLWEvJJCKA0dS7QFTXy0oA2=NsKRwJ3WbKwfdCXUufxcPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:02:44 -0800
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ntp: verify offset doesn't overflow in ntp_update_offset
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> wrote:
> We need to make sure that the offset is valid before manipulating it,
> otherwise it might overflow on the multiplication.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
> ---
> kernel/time/ntp.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/ntp.c b/kernel/time/ntp.c
> index 149cc80..36616c3 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/ntp.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/ntp.c
> @@ -297,6 +297,9 @@ static void ntp_update_offset(long offset)
> if (!(time_status & STA_PLL))
> return;
>
> + /* Make sure the multiplication below won't overflow */
> + offset = clamp(offset, -MAXPHASE, MAXPHASE);
> +
> if (!(time_status & STA_NANO))
> offset *= NSEC_PER_USEC;
So looking at this a bit closer, this bit looks sort of crazy since we
clam the offset, do the multiply and then do the exact same clamp.
I'd much rather do a more logical clamp(offset, -USEC_PER_SEC,
USEC_PER_SEC), but only in the case where we do the multiply.
Any objection to that?
thanks
-john
--
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