[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200804232335.GA27679@hoboy>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:23:35 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jacob.e.keller@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ptp: only allow phase values lower than 1 period
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 10:49:21PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> @@ -218,6 +218,19 @@ long ptp_ioctl(struct posix_clock *pc, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> break;
> }
> }
> + if (perout->flags & PTP_PEROUT_PHASE) {
> + /*
> + * The phase should be specified modulo the
> + * period, therefore anything larger than 1
> + * period is invalid.
> + */
> + if (perout->phase.sec > perout->period.sec ||
> + (perout->phase.sec == perout->period.sec &&
> + perout->phase.nsec > perout->period.nsec)) {
> + err = -ERANGE;
> + break;
> + }
So if perout->period={1,0} and perout->phase={1,0} then the phase has
wrapped 360 degrees back to zero.
Shouldn't this code catch that case as well?
So why not test for (perout->phase.nsec >= perout->period.nsec) instead?
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists