On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Richard Cochran >> <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > The overflow is a latent problem, and the patch should: >> > >> > 1. return error in case (txc->time.tv_usec >= USEC_PER_SEC) >> > 2. remove the redundant test in timekeeping_inject_offset. >> >> So we probably want to keep the check in timekeeping_inject_offset() >> since there can be other users as well of that function. >> >> But its probably cleanest to add a check in ntp_validate_timex() >> instead of where this patch does it. > > So instead of open coding the checks on both sites, can we please have > an inline function with proper comments why time.tv_sec can be > negative, something like adjtimex_timeval_is_valid() or such.
Right. So the only gotcha with this is that adjtimex wants to check that the timeval is valid (before we convert it to a timespec), but timekeeping_inject_offset wants to make sure the timespec is valid. So one nice inline function won't cut it. But I can add a timespec_inject_offset_valid() and timeval_inject_offset_valid() which will do the same basic check for each type. thanks -john -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
