On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Xishi Qiu wrote: > On 2017/6/4 23:06, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, Xishi Qiu wrote: > > > > Cc'ed John Stultz > > > >> Hi, this is the test case, and then I got ubsan error > >> (signed integer overflow) report, so the root cause is from > >> user or kernel? Shall we change something in timeval_valid()? > >> > >> > >> struct itimerval new_value; > >> int ret; > >> > >> new_value.it_interval.tv_sec = 140673496649799L; > >> new_value.it_interval.tv_usec = 6; > >> new_value.it_value.tv_sec = 140673496649807L; > >> new_value.it_value.tv_usec = 5; > >> > >> ret = setitimer(ITIMER_VIRTUAL, &new_value, NULL); > >> > >> > >> [ 533.326588] > >> ================================================================================ > >> [ 533.335346] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in ./include/linux/time.h:239:27 > >> [ 533.342155] signed integer overflow: > >> [ 533.345837] 140673496649807 * 1000000000 cannot be represented in type > >> 'long int' > >> [ 533.422181] set_cpu_itimer+0x49c/0x540 > >> [ 533.442127] do_setitimer+0xe1/0x540 > > > > We need a similar clamping of the conversion as we have for > > timespec/val_to_ktime(). I'll have a look in the next days unless John > > beats me to it. > > > > Hi Thomas, anything new?
Let me spell it out to you again. I wrote on Sunday late night: "I'll have a look in the next days ...." Do you really think I need a reminder after 24 hours? Thanks, tglx