On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:29 PM Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfe...@huawei.com> wrote: > > When I ran Syzkaller testsuite, I got the following call trace. > ================================================================================ > UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in kernel/time/ntp.c:457:16 > signed integer overflow: > 9223372036854775807 + 500 cannot be represented in type 'long int' > CPU: 3 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/3 Not tainted 4.19.25-dirty #2 > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1ubuntu1 > 04/01/2014 > Call Trace: > <IRQ> > __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline] > dump_stack+0xca/0x13e lib/dump_stack.c:113 > ubsan_epilogue+0xe/0x81 lib/ubsan.c:159 > handle_overflow+0x193/0x1e2 lib/ubsan.c:190 > second_overflow+0x403/0x540 kernel/time/ntp.c:457 > accumulate_nsecs_to_secs kernel/time/timekeeping.c:2002 [inline] > logarithmic_accumulation kernel/time/timekeeping.c:2046 [inline] > timekeeping_advance+0x2bb/0xec0 kernel/time/timekeeping.c:2114 > tick_do_update_jiffies64.part.2+0x1a0/0x350 kernel/time/tick-sched.c:97 > tick_do_update_jiffies64 kernel/time/tick-sched.c:1229 [inline] > tick_nohz_update_jiffies kernel/time/tick-sched.c:499 [inline] > tick_nohz_irq_enter kernel/time/tick-sched.c:1232 [inline] > tick_irq_enter+0x1fd/0x240 kernel/time/tick-sched.c:1249 > irq_enter+0xc4/0x100 kernel/softirq.c:353 > entering_irq arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h:517 [inline] > entering_ack_irq arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h:523 [inline] > smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x20/0x480 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1052 > apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:864 > </IRQ> > RIP: 0010:native_safe_halt+0x2/0x10 arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h:58 > Code: 01 f0 0f 82 bc fd ff ff 48 c7 c7 c0 21 b1 83 e8 a1 0a 02 ff e9 ab fd ff > ff 4c 89 e7 e8 77 b6 a5 fe e9 6a ff ff ff 90 90 fb f4 <c3> 0f 1f 00 66 2e 0f > 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 f4 c3 90 90 90 90 90 90 > RSP: 0018:ffff888106307d20 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffff13 > RAX: 0000000000000007 RBX: dffffc0000000000 RCX: 0000000000000000 > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffff8881062e4f1c > RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: ffffed107c5dc77b R09: 0000000000000000 > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffffff848c78a0 > R13: 0000000000000003 R14: 1ffff11020c60fae R15: 0000000000000000 > arch_safe_halt arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:94 [inline] > default_idle+0x24/0x2b0 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:561 > cpuidle_idle_call kernel/sched/idle.c:153 [inline] > do_idle+0x2ca/0x420 kernel/sched/idle.c:262 > cpu_startup_entry+0xcb/0xe0 kernel/sched/idle.c:368 > start_secondary+0x421/0x570 arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:271 > secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S:243 > ================================================================================ > > It is because time_maxerror is set as 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF by user. It > overflows when we add it with 'MAXFREQ / NSEC_PER_USEC' in > 'second_overflow()'. > > This patch add a limit check and saturate it when the user set > 'time_maxerror'. > > Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfe...@huawei.com> > --- > kernel/time/ntp.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/time/ntp.c b/kernel/time/ntp.c > index 36a2bef..38e1b65 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/ntp.c > +++ b/kernel/time/ntp.c > @@ -677,6 +677,8 @@ static inline void process_adjtimex_modes(const struct > timex *txc, s32 *time_tai > > if (txc->modes & ADJ_MAXERROR) > time_maxerror = txc->maxerror; > + if (time_maxerror > NTP_PHASE_LIMIT) > + time_maxerror = NTP_PHASE_LIMIT;
This looks sane to me. Acked-by: John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> Though it makes me wonder a bit more about the sanity checking on the other parameters passed via adjtimex(), tick_usec for instance looks like it could be similarly problematic. thanks -john
