public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: bryan.whitehead@microchip.com, davem@davemloft.net,
	edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
	anna-maria@linutronix.de, frederic@kernel.org,
	UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, mbenes@suse.cz, jstultz@google.com,
	andrew@lunn.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v3 1/2] posix-timers: Check timespec64 before call clock_set()
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 17:48:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r09ra4st.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1cae2765-65cc-7dc5-8321-76c8b7ef1b8c@huawei.com>

On Tue, Sep 10 2024 at 20:30, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> On 2024/9/10 20:05, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Can you please stop this handwaving and provide proper technical
>> arguments?
>> 
>> Why would PTP have less strict requirements than settimeofday()?
>
> I checked all the PTP driver, most of them use timespec64_to_ns()
> convert them to ns which already have a check, but the others not check
> them, and lan743x_ptp check them differently and more, so i think this
> is a minimum check.

It does not matter at all what the PTP drivers do. What matters is what
is correct and what not.

What they do is actually wrong as they simply cut off an overly large
value instead of rejecting it in the first place. That's not a check at
all.

The cutoff in timespec64_to_ns() is there to saturate the result instead
of running into a multiplication overflow. That's correct for some use
cases, but not a replacement for an actual useful range check.

This is about correctness and correctness is not defined by what a bunch
of drivers implement which are all a big copy & pasta orgy.

Thanks,

        tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2024-09-10 15:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-09-09  7:41 [PATCH -next v3 0/2] posix-timers: Check timespec64 before call clock_set() Jinjie Ruan
2024-09-09  7:41 ` [PATCH -next v3 1/2] " Jinjie Ruan
2024-09-09 15:19   ` Richard Cochran
2024-09-10 11:23     ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-09-10 12:05       ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-09-10 12:30         ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-09-10 15:48           ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2024-09-12  2:53     ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-09-12 12:04       ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-09-12 12:24         ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-09-13 10:46           ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-09-14  9:00             ` Jinjie Ruan
2024-09-09  7:41 ` [PATCH -next v3 2/2] net: lan743x: Remove duplicate check Jinjie Ruan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87r09ra4st.ffs@tglx \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com \
    --cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
    --cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bryan.whitehead@microchip.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=jstultz@google.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
    --cc=ruanjinjie@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox