[PATCH -next v4 0/2] posix-clock: Check timespec64 for PTP clock

[PATCH -next v4 0/2] posix-clock: Check timespec64 for PTP clock

[Jinjie Ruan]

Check timespec64 in pc_clock_settime() for PTP clock.

Changes in v4:
- Check it in pc_clock_settime() for PTP clock.
- Update the commit message.

Changes in v3:
- Check it before call clock_set().
- Update the commit message.

Jinjie Ruan (2):
  posix-clock: Check timespec64 before call clock_settime()
  net: lan743x: Remove duplicate check

 drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan743x_ptp.c | 35 ++++++++------------
 kernel/time/posix-clock.c                    |  3 ++
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH -next v4 1/2] posix-clock: Check timespec64 before call clock_settime()

[Jinjie Ruan]

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 mannul of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or
tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it shuld return EINVAL,
which include Dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is
consistent with timespec64_valid(). So check it ahead using
timespec64_valid() 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.

Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
---
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 4782edcbe7b9..89e39f9bd7ae 100644
--- a/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
+++ b/kernel/time/posix-clock.c
@@ -319,6 +319,9 @@ static int pc_clock_settime(clockid_t id, const struct timespec64 *ts)
 		goto out;
 	}
 
+	if (!timespec64_valid(ts))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	if (cd.clk->ops.clock_settime)
 		err = cd.clk->ops.clock_settime(cd.clk, ts);
 	else
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH -next v4 2/2] net: lan743x: Remove duplicate check

[Jinjie Ruan]

Since timespec64_valid() has been checked in higher layer
pc_clock_settime(), the duplicate check in lan743x_ptpci_settime64()
can be removed.

Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
---
v4:
- Update the commit message.
---
v2:
- Check it in ptp core instead of using NSEC_PER_SEC macro.
- Remove the NULL check.
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan743x_ptp.c | 35 ++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan743x_ptp.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan743x_ptp.c
index dcea6652d56d..4a777b449ecd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan743x_ptp.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan743x_ptp.c
@@ -401,28 +401,21 @@ static int lan743x_ptpci_settime64(struct ptp_clock_info *ptpci,
 	u32 nano_seconds = 0;
 	u32 seconds = 0;
 
-	if (ts) {
-		if (ts->tv_sec > 0xFFFFFFFFLL ||
-		    ts->tv_sec < 0) {
-			netif_warn(adapter, drv, adapter->netdev,
-				   "ts->tv_sec out of range, %lld\n",
-				   ts->tv_sec);
-			return -ERANGE;
-		}
-		if (ts->tv_nsec >= 1000000000L ||
-		    ts->tv_nsec < 0) {
-			netif_warn(adapter, drv, adapter->netdev,
-				   "ts->tv_nsec out of range, %ld\n",
-				   ts->tv_nsec);
-			return -ERANGE;
-		}
-		seconds = ts->tv_sec;
-		nano_seconds = ts->tv_nsec;
-		lan743x_ptp_clock_set(adapter, seconds, nano_seconds, 0);
-	} else {
-		netif_warn(adapter, drv, adapter->netdev, "ts == NULL\n");
-		return -EINVAL;
+	if (ts->tv_sec > 0xFFFFFFFFLL) {
+		netif_warn(adapter, drv, adapter->netdev,
+			   "ts->tv_sec out of range, %lld\n",
+			   ts->tv_sec);
+		return -ERANGE;
+	}
+	if (ts->tv_nsec < 0) {
+		netif_warn(adapter, drv, adapter->netdev,
+			   "ts->tv_nsec out of range, %ld\n",
+			   ts->tv_nsec);
+		return -ERANGE;
 	}
+	seconds = ts->tv_sec;
+	nano_seconds = ts->tv_nsec;
+	lan743x_ptp_clock_set(adapter, seconds, nano_seconds, 0);
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH -next v4 2/2] net: lan743x: Remove duplicate check

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:06:25 +0800 Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> Since timespec64_valid() has been checked in higher layer
> pc_clock_settime(), the duplicate check in lan743x_ptpci_settime64()
> can be removed.

net-next is closed until the end of the 6.12 merge window:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240912181222.2dd75818@kernel.org/
please repost when it reopens
-- 
pw-bot: defer

Re: [PATCH -next v4 1/2] posix-clock: Check timespec64 before call clock_settime()

[Simon Horman]

On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 06:06:24PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> 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 mannul of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or
> tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it shuld return EINVAL,

nit: should

Flagged by checkpatch.pl --codespell

...

Re: [PATCH -next v4 1/2] posix-clock: Check timespec64 before call clock_settime()

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, Sep 14 2024 at 16:23, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 06:06:24PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> 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 mannul of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or
>> tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it shuld return EINVAL,
>
> nit: should
>
> Flagged by checkpatch.pl --codespell

...  man mannul

Flagged by my taste sensors.

Re: [PATCH -next v4 1/2] posix-clock: Check timespec64 before call clock_settime()

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, Sep 14 2024 at 18:06, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> 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 mannul of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or
> tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it shuld return EINVAL,
> which include Dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is
> consistent with timespec64_valid(). So check it ahead using
> timespec64_valid() 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.
  
> +	if (!timespec64_valid(ts))
> +		return -EINVAL;

This just makes sure, that the timespec is valid. But it does not ensure
that the time is in a valid range.

This should at least use timespec64_valid_strict() if not
timespec64_valid_gettod().

Thanks,

        tglx