In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP corechecked timespec64 struct s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before callingptp->info->settime64().As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative ortp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition isconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time isin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly towrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layerhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such ashclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
