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 09:39:00 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To:     ZhangXiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
Cc:     john.stultz@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de, sboyd@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time: Validate the usec before covert to nsec in
 do_adjtimex
Message-ID: <20190708163900.yhzb2qh7w5mlcqkc@localhost>
References: <1562572504-142115-1-git-send-email-zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1562572504-142115-1-git-send-email-zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:55:04PM +0800, 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.
> 
> Signed-off-by: ZhangXiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
> ---
>  kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> index 44b726b..e5c1d00 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> @@ -1272,9 +1272,6 @@ static int timekeeping_inject_offset(const struct timespec64 *ts)
>  	struct timespec64 tmp;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> -	if (ts->tv_nsec < 0 || ts->tv_nsec >= NSEC_PER_SEC)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
>  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, flags);
>  	write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq);
>  
> @@ -2321,6 +2318,9 @@ int do_adjtimex(struct __kernel_timex *txc)
>  
>  	if (txc->modes & ADJ_SETOFFSET) {
>  		struct timespec64 delta;
> +
> +		if (txc->time.tv_usec < 0 || txc->time.tv_usec >= USEC_PER_SEC)
> +			return -EINVAL;

This test is wrong.  If the tv_usec field is in nanoseconds, then the
value can easily be greater than USEC_PER_SEC.

>  		delta.tv_sec  = txc->time.tv_sec;
>  		delta.tv_nsec = txc->time.tv_usec;
>  		if (!(txc->modes & ADJ_NANO))
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 

Thanks,
Richard