From patchwork Wed Oct 9 07:23:01 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jinjie Ruan X-Patchwork-Id: 13827633 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3754617C9B8; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 07:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.190 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728458663; cv=none; b=BY5rEAM5AuYf1nz87VlI+HJLzL2ksyfCFjSUciM5Q/wbmopzl5uqL8Y41dK2ru37ttQQS4urtW3uvuL4MYKobPzJjfdwtnRfvT7U26iDm+Mp8gVTWJ96G6tufdjqd4O7Y6xqpC1e/TfvYGyMlRvy6B6WOLrafwW5REm/egCpXXc= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728458663; c=relaxed/simple; bh=O96UbTEsoJPPX4U/aIemGDnuhCKWsVXkJYZ65ZRSlRY=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=huWeCbiB8zSxC/4EpGK2sAm6PcOyLn9reBpBcfCWtpxk3CpJWdw5eBMgt4ooLid4YrTuhQoLjJ7TjHoRwHoMAyJqVlmwhluEEHnzFB0qG8iYjcyza1bZ1isNrRdDvkyjs/xt3QNqMuH6zWWiZHpf8dQA+y3wR1zxE61FrVzDOas= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.190 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.234]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XNkrL05HLz2DdHn; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:23:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.146]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 162DA140134; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:24:19 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com (10.90.53.73) by kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:24:18 +0800 From: Jinjie Ruan To: , , , , , , , , , , , , , CC: Subject: [PATCH v5 RESEND 1/2] posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 15:23:01 +0800 Message-ID: <20241009072302.1754567-2-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1 In-Reply-To: <20241009072302.1754567-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> References: <20241009072302.1754567-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.146) 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@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 0606f422b453 ("posix clocks: Introduce dynamic clocks") Acked-by: Richard Cochran Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan --- 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