Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | [patch 2.6.18-git] RTC class, error checks | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:34:13 -0700 |
| |
[RESEND]
The rtc_is_valid_tm() routine needs to treat some of the fields it checks as unsigned, to prevent wrongly accepting invalid rtc_time structs; this is the same approach used elsewhere in the RTC code for such tests.
Conversely, rtc_proc_show() is missing one invalid-day-of-month test that rtc_is_valid_tm() makes: there is no day zero.
Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>
Index: osk/drivers/rtc/rtc-lib.c =================================================================== --- osk.orig/drivers/rtc/rtc-lib.c 2006-05-09 09:42:01.000000000 -0700 +++ osk/drivers/rtc/rtc-lib.c 2006-08-01 22:12:43.000000000 -0700 @@ -75,12 +75,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtc_time_to_tm); int rtc_valid_tm(struct rtc_time *tm) { if (tm->tm_year < 70 - || tm->tm_mon >= 12 + || ((unsigned)tm->tm_mon) >= 12 || tm->tm_mday < 1 || tm->tm_mday > rtc_month_days(tm->tm_mon, tm->tm_year + 1900) - || tm->tm_hour >= 24 - || tm->tm_min >= 60 - || tm->tm_sec >= 60) + || ((unsigned)tm->tm_hour) >= 24 + || ((unsigned)tm->tm_min) >= 60 + || ((unsigned)tm->tm_sec) >= 60) return -EINVAL; return 0; Index: osk/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c =================================================================== --- osk.orig/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c 2006-05-09 09:42:01.000000000 -0700 +++ osk/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c 2006-08-01 22:15:19.000000000 -0700 @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static int rtc_proc_show(struct seq_file seq_printf(seq, "%02d-", alrm.time.tm_mon + 1); else seq_printf(seq, "**-"); - if ((unsigned int)alrm.time.tm_mday <= 31) + if (alrm.time.tm_mday && (unsigned int)alrm.time.tm_mday <= 31) seq_printf(seq, "%02d\n", alrm.time.tm_mday); else seq_printf(seq, "**\n"); - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |