Bug 2324549 (CVE-2024-50195) - CVE-2024-50195 kernel: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()
Summary: CVE-2024-50195 kernel: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2024-50195
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2325140
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-11-08 13:44 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2024-11-21 18:50 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2024-11-08 13:44:49 UTC
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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.