[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875xr3btou.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:05:05 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>, Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: bryan.whitehead@...rochip.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
frederic@...nel.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, mbenes@...e.cz,
jstultz@...gle.com, andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v3 1/2] posix-timers: Check timespec64 before call
clock_set()
On Tue, Sep 10 2024 at 19:23, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> On 2024/9/9 23:19, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 03:41:23PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>>> diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-timers.c b/kernel/time/posix-timers.c
>>> index 1cc830ef93a7..34deec619e17 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/time/posix-timers.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/time/posix-timers.c
>>> @@ -1137,6 +1137,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(clock_settime, const clockid_t, which_clock,
>>> if (get_timespec64(&new_tp, tp))
>>> return -EFAULT;
>>>
>>> + if (!timespec64_valid(&new_tp))
>>> + return -ERANGE;
>>
>> Why not use timespec64_valid_settod()?
>
> It seems more limited and is only used in timekeeping or
> do_sys_settimeofday64().
For a very good reason.
> And the timespec64_valid() is looser and wider used, which I think is
> more appropriate here.
Can you please stop this handwaving and provide proper technical
arguments?
Why would PTP have less strict requirements than settimeofday()?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists