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 core
checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling
ptp->info->settime64().
As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or
tp.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 is
consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()
only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is
in 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 to
write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer
has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as
hclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),
and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
Metrics
Affected Vendors & Products
References
History
Fri, 29 Nov 2024 20:45:00 +0000
Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
---|---|---|
First Time appeared |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
Weaknesses | CWE-754 | |
CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.12:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.12:rc2:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.12:rc3:*:*:*:*:*:* |
|
Vendors & Products |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
Fri, 22 Nov 2024 14:00:00 +0000
Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
---|---|---|
References |
| |
Metrics |
threat_severity
|
cvssV3_1
|
Fri, 08 Nov 2024 16:15:00 +0000
Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
---|---|---|
References |
|
Fri, 08 Nov 2024 06:00:00 +0000
Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
---|---|---|
Description | 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 core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.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 is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in 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 to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(), and some drivers can remove the checks of itself. | |
Title | posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() | |
References |
|
|

Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2024-12-19T09:35:13.429Z
Reserved: 2024-10-21T19:36:19.968Z
Link: CVE-2024-50195

No data.

Status : Analyzed
Published: 2024-11-08T06:15:16.280
Modified: 2024-11-29T20:26:50.623
Link: CVE-2024-50195
