Re: [PATCH 1/2] time: settimeofday: Validate the values of tv from user

[Sasha Levin]

On 01/07/2015 02:02 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 10:12:19AM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>>> From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> An unvalidated user input is multiplied by a constant, which can result in
>>> an undefined behaviour for large values. While this is validated later,
>>> we should avoid triggering undefined behaviour.
>>>
>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> [jstultz: include trivial milisecond->microsecond correction noticed
>>> by Andy]
>>> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/time.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>  kernel/time/time.c   |  4 ++++
>>>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> <formletter>
>>
>> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
>> stable kernel tree.  Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
>> for how to do this properly.
>>
>> </formletter>
> 
> Hrm. I'm not quite sure which rule I'm running afoul here.
> 
> Does this seem too much like a theoretical issue and not like enough
> of a "oh, that's not good" issue?

I suspect it's something more like "Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" vs
"Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx", but not really sure.


Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/