Miroslav,
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:14:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, 维康石 wrote:
> > > Yes,the >UINT_MAX value can be passed by
> > > syscall adjtimex->do_adjtimex->__do_adjtimex->process_adjtimex_modes by
> > > the
>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:14:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, 维康石 wrote:
> > Yes,the >UINT_MAX value can be passed by
> > syscall adjtimex->do_adjtimex->__do_adjtimex->process_adjtimex_modes by the
> > proper arugments.
>
> So there is clearly some sanity check missing,
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, 维康石 wrote:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019, Weikang shi wrote:
> From: swkhack
>
> It is meanless to check a 64bit(txc->constant) value is postive
> when the value has to be assigned to a 32 bit variable(*time_tai).
> So I make a temp type conversion before the compare.
What? Casting it to int makes it more
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019, Weikang shi wrote:
> From: swkhack
>
> It is meanless to check a 64bit(txc->constant) value is postive
> when the value has to be assigned to a 32 bit variable(*time_tai).
> So I make a temp type conversion before the compare.
Errm no. This is missing a proper range check
From: swkhack
It is meanless to check a 64bit(txc->constant) value is postive
when the value has to be assigned to a 32 bit variable(*time_tai).
So I make a temp type conversion before the compare.
Signed-off-by: swkhack
---
kernel/time/ntp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1
6 matches
Mail list logo
