From 1491e30ed1a741009d1d38f9285f7a29e6c05c78 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:56:56 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] 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: Dan Carpenter Reviewed-by: Jan Kara Cc: Petr Vandrovec Cc: David Howells Cc: Jan Kara Cc: Al Viro Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c b/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c index 79b113048eac..0a3f9b594602 100644 --- a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c +++ b/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c @@ -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) -- 2.20.1