Commit 1491e30e authored by Dan Carpenter's avatar Dan Carpenter Committed by Linus Torvalds

ncpfs: don't allow negative timeouts

This code causes a static checker warning because it's a user controlled
variable where we cap the upper bound but not the lower bound.  Let's
return an -EINVAL for negative timeouts.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: remove unneeded `else']
Signed-off-by: default avatarDan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarJan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Petr Vandrovec <petr@vandrovec.name>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent 5cf6a51e
......@@ -525,6 +525,8 @@ static long __ncp_ioctl(struct inode *inode, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg
switch (rqdata.cmd) {
case NCP_LOCK_EX:
case NCP_LOCK_SH:
if (rqdata.timeout < 0)
return -EINVAL;
if (rqdata.timeout == 0)
rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
else if (rqdata.timeout > NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT)
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment