From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) (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 8E29F171671; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:23:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.255 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725967426; cv=none; b=Lp6DH4/2zfvX7/zJqj6jSV9gFPqHCPJ7ByGFslXmwdhNBueDX7BJgW3vE60phndpkRcWWXq/3bkNgu99GuitwS8a1RtweAaeXrdqlYOI8lzzw1WpywVTn0ct+OEimUVro2zmPDbmiwfMAMb7cLLxhZhPVxyOhqGOVh0KRFH9BRk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725967426; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZylxWksczSgEUECsADaiv61AwUrhoBUJsUxtli1fYTQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=gYSvZ2FDNjN8yNyQZ8tS97xVP8msIPqLedMGH75vCLZNoyRDoRH1SCu6mvgxj3jhGaaNcAkhh9p/VSPT3a6TNjCpdFwH7cO2rFIsJbE20u4/HMuNI8wQg8exy+d8adRrvJDXiTBgH5XYoFTKI4iTgd1i3lp1N0oRQ7tuDecfWDQ= 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=45.249.212.255 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 [172.19.163.252]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4X31Wv3BP4z13wB7; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:22:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.146]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9E2A180AE6; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:23:40 +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; Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:23:39 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:23:38 +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: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) 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()? It seems more limited and is only used in timekeeping or do_sys_settimeofday64(). And the timespec64_valid() is looser and wider used, which I think is more appropriate here. > > Thanks, > Richard