From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (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 4653E13AA5D; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 02:53:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.187 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726109631; cv=none; b=Dh74Dc5OmizHPPY/KazbF8/NO2MqkiOskmoDC4oc9WUYjR3pNAcQ6XpssYOiOmKj/NSTaNTRFiPWeplSUXyzhroqfuJDvXRxIRhJnXfE9YfBvYU6IaBj7zuG7JxBLfzX9+kVR0ZLkW9mFj9A1TeXqygJjwcjdGfPwvXkxQw8Sjs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726109631; c=relaxed/simple; bh=rKKjoUamE/k8TvE++nL1Z700qyaVlVKJjrxktWUMzkk=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=tTpe3kxZ79vF9u8mnsJh8zvlNaOpyeoruukB7s70/qdyCAAPwv6M+VuKgxvzdYt5yf3A36xwpvqi0dfbU+dnVSuzXdPDddCijB+bMGz9RB6jL1lE8A6FgaB0vT+ON2l48pTuxlGNox0qOutgpFkBtZosNeuHj36gFpmbrmPkV88= 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=45.249.212.187 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 [172.19.163.48]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4X426Z5Q21zyR4n; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:52:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.146]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FF6D180064; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:53:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) 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; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:53:45 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:53:44 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v3 1/2] posix-timers: Check timespec64 before call clock_set() Content-Language: en-US To: Richard Cochran CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20240909074124.964907-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <20240909074124.964907-2-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.146) On 2024/9/9 23:19, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 03:41:23PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-timers.c b/kernel/time/posix-timers.c >> index 1cc830ef93a7..34deec619e17 100644 >> --- a/kernel/time/posix-timers.c >> +++ b/kernel/time/posix-timers.c >> @@ -1137,6 +1137,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(clock_settime, const clockid_t, which_clock, >> if (get_timespec64(&new_tp, tp)) >> return -EFAULT; >> >> + if (!timespec64_valid(&new_tp)) >> + return -ERANGE; > > Why not use timespec64_valid_settod()? There was already checks in following code, so it is not necessary to check NULL or timespec64_valid() in ptp core and its drivers, only the second patch is needed. 169 int do_sys_settimeofday64(const struct timespec64 *tv, const struct timezone *tz) 170 { 171 >-------static int firsttime = 1; 172 >-------int error = 0; 173 174 >-------if (tv && !timespec64_valid_settod(tv)) 175 >------->-------return -EINVAL; > > Thanks, > Richard