<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:29:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2024-50195 — posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-50195</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core
checked timespec64 struct&amp;#39;s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling
ptp-&amp;gt;info-&amp;gt;settime64().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are some drivers that use tp-&amp;gt;tv_sec and tp-&amp;gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core
checked timespec64 struct&amp;#39;s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling
ptp-&amp;gt;info-&amp;gt;settime64().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are some drivers that use tp-&amp;gt;tv_sec and tp-&amp;gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-50195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
