Re: [PATCH 1/2] ntp: Fix ADJ_SETOFFSET being used w/ ADJ_NANO

Hi On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:03 AM, John Stultz wrote: > Recently, in commit 37cf4dc3370f > ("time: Verify time values in adjtimex ADJ_SETOFFSET to avoid overflow") > I forgot to check if the timeval being passed was actually a > timespec (as is signaled with ADJ_NANO). > > This resulted in

Re: [PATCH 1/2] ntp: Fix ADJ_SETOFFSET being used w/ ADJ_NANO

Hi On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:03 AM, John Stultz wrote: > Recently, in commit 37cf4dc3370f > ("time: Verify time values in adjtimex ADJ_SETOFFSET to avoid overflow") > I forgot to check if the timeval being passed was actually a > timespec (as is signaled with ADJ_NANO).

[PATCH 1/2] ntp: Fix ADJ_SETOFFSET being used w/ ADJ_NANO

Recently, in commit 37cf4dc3370f ("time: Verify time values in adjtimex ADJ_SETOFFSET to avoid overflow") I forgot to check if the timeval being passed was actually a timespec (as is signaled with ADJ_NANO). This resulted in that patch breaking ADJ_SETOFFSET users who set ADJ_NANO, by rejecting

[PATCH 1/2] ntp: Fix ADJ_SETOFFSET being used w/ ADJ_NANO

Recently, in commit 37cf4dc3370f ("time: Verify time values in adjtimex ADJ_SETOFFSET to avoid overflow") I forgot to check if the timeval being passed was actually a timespec (as is signaled with ADJ_NANO). This resulted in that patch breaking ADJ_SETOFFSET users who set ADJ_NANO, by rejecting