Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 8 Jul 2019 15:04:21 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     ZhangXiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
cc:     john.stultz@linaro.org, sboyd@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2] time: Validate the usec before covert to nsec in
 do_adjtimex
In-Reply-To: <1562582568-129891-1-git-send-email-zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907081458400.1926@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <1562582568-129891-1-git-send-email-zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 8 Jul 2019, ZhangXiaoxu wrote:

> When covert the usec to nsec, it will multiple 1000, it maybe
> overflow and lead an undefined behavior.
> 
> For example, users may input an negative tv_usec values when
> call adjtimex syscall, then multiple 1000 maybe overflow it
> to a positive and legal number.
> 
> So, we should validate the usec before coverted it to nsec.

Looking deeper before applying it. That change is wrong for two reasons:

 1) The value is already validated in timekeeping_validate_timex()

 2) The tv_usec value can legitimately be >= USEC_PER_SEC if the ADJ_NANO
    mode bit is set. See timekeeping_validate_timex() and the code you
    actually modified:

>  	if (txc->modes & ADJ_SETOFFSET) {
>  		struct timespec64 delta;
> +
> +		if (txc->time.tv_usec < 0 || txc->time.tv_usec >= USEC_PER_SEC)
> +			return -EINVAL;
>  		delta.tv_sec  = txc->time.tv_sec;
>  		delta.tv_nsec = txc->time.tv_usec;
>  		if (!(txc->modes & ADJ_NANO))
			delta.tv_nsec *= 1000;

    	The multiplication is conditional ....

Thanks,

	tglx