Re: [PATCH] time: verify time values in adjtimex ADJ_SETOFFSET to avoid overflow

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2015, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 12/05/2015 12:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > 
> >> Make sure the tv_usec makes sense. We might multiply them later which can
> >> cause an overflow and undefined behavior.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  kernel/time/timekeeping.c |    4 ++++
> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> >> index d563c19..aa3c1c2 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> >> @@ -1987,6 +1987,10 @@ int do_adjtimex(struct timex *txc)
> >>  
> >>  	if (txc->modes & ADJ_SETOFFSET) {
> >>  		struct timespec delta;
> >> +
> >> +		if (txc->time.tv_usec >= USEC_PER_SEC || txc->time.tv_usec <= -USEC_PER_SEC)
> >> +			return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > That's not a canonical timeval. timeval_valid() is what you want to
> > check it. Or has adjtimex some magic exception here?
> 
> Nope, it looks like timeval_valid() is indeed what I've needed to use.
> 
> Is there a reason ntp_validate_timex() doesn't do timeval_valid() too
> for at least the ADJ_SETOFFSET case? If not, I'll add it in.

Not that I know, but John might have some opinion on that.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/