[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241009072302.1754567-2-ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:23:01 +0800
From: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
To: <bryan.whitehead@...rochip.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<anna-maria@...utronix.de>, <frederic@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<richardcochran@...il.com>, <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <jstultz@...gle.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 RESEND 1/2] posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()
As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core
checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling
ptp->info->settime64().
As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or
tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,
which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is
consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()
only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is
in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()
in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.
There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to
write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer
has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as
hclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),
and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Fixes: 0606f422b453 ("posix clocks: Introduce dynamic clocks")
Acked-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
---
v5 -> resend
- Add Acked-by.
- Also Cc John Stultz.
v5:
- Update the commit message.
- Use timespec64_valid_strict() instead of timespec64_valid()
as Thomas suggested.
- Add fix tag.
v4:
- Check it in pc_clock_settime().
- Update the commit message.
v3:
- Adjust to check in more higher layer clock_settime().
- Remove the NULL check.
- Update the commit message and subject.
v2:
- Adjust to check in ptp_clock_settime().
---
kernel/time/posix-clock.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
index c2f3d0c490d5..316a4e8c97d3 100644
--- a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
+++ b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
@@ -318,6 +318,9 @@ static int pc_clock_settime(clockid_t id, const struct timespec64 *ts)
goto out;
}
+ if (!timespec64_valid_strict(ts))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
if (cd.clk->ops.clock_settime)
err = cd.clk->ops.clock_settime(cd.clk, ts);
else
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists