On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:04 PM Thomas Gleixner email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:53 PM Thomas Gleixner firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
My idea was to not duplicate the range check that is done in do_sys_settimeofday64() and again in do_settimeofday64:
if (!timespec64_valid_settod(ts)) return -EINVAL;
The only check we should need in addition to this is to ensure that passing an invalid tv_usec number doesn't become an unexpectedly valid tv_nsec after the multiplication.
Right, but please add a proper comment as you/we are going to scratch heads 4 weeks from now when staring at that check and wondering why it is incomplete.
Ok, done. I had just uploaded the branch with the fixup for the __user pointer access in the same patch, but that version had introduced another typo. I hope the version I uploaded now has all known issues addressed for tomorrow's linux-next.