[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61B166D9.8070809@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 10:15:53 +0800
From: yebin <yebin10@...wei.com>
To: <axboe@...nel.dk>, <asml.silence@...il.com>,
<io-uring@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] io_uring: use timespec64_valid() to verify time
value
On 2021/12/2 14:49, Ye Bin wrote:
> It's better to use timespec64_valid() to verify time value.
>
> Fixes: 2087009c74d4("io_uring: validate timespec for timeout removals")
> Fixes: f6223ff79966("io_uring: Fix undefined-behaviour in io_issue_sqe")
> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
> ---
> fs/io_uring.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
> index 568729677e25..929ff732d6dc 100644
> --- a/fs/io_uring.c
> +++ b/fs/io_uring.c
> @@ -6151,7 +6151,7 @@ static int io_timeout_remove_prep(struct io_kiocb *req,
> return -EINVAL;
> if (get_timespec64(&tr->ts, u64_to_user_ptr(sqe->addr2)))
> return -EFAULT;
> - if (tr->ts.tv_sec < 0 || tr->ts.tv_nsec < 0)
> + if (!timespec64_valid(&tr->ts))
> return -EINVAL;
> } else if (tr->flags) {
> /* timeout removal doesn't support flags */
> @@ -6238,7 +6238,7 @@ static int io_timeout_prep(struct io_kiocb *req, const struct io_uring_sqe *sqe,
> if (get_timespec64(&data->ts, u64_to_user_ptr(sqe->addr)))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> - if (data->ts.tv_sec < 0 || data->ts.tv_nsec < 0)
> + if (!timespec64_valid(&data->ts))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> data->mode = io_translate_timeout_mode(flags);
ping...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists