| Message ID | 20170501184343.lkkv43vzwsyrty3d@mwanda (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/fs/cifs/netmisc.c b/fs/cifs/netmisc.c index abae6dd2c6b9..cc88f4f0325e 100644 --- a/fs/cifs/netmisc.c +++ b/fs/cifs/netmisc.c @@ -980,10 +980,10 @@ struct timespec cnvrtDosUnixTm(__le16 le_date, __le16 le_time, int offset) cifs_dbg(VFS, "illegal hours %d\n", st->Hours); days = sd->Day; month = sd->Month; - if ((days > 31) || (month > 12)) { + if (days < 1 || days > 31 || month < 1 || month > 12) { cifs_dbg(VFS, "illegal date, month %d day: %d\n", month, days); - if (month > 12) - month = 12; + days = clamp(days, 1, 31); + month = clamp(month, 1, 12); } month -= 1; days += total_days_of_prev_months[month];
January is month 1. There is no zero-th month. If someone passes a zero month then it means we read from one space before the start of the total_days_of_prev_months[] array. We may as well also be strict about days as well. Fixes: 1bd5bbcb6531 ("[CIFS] Legacy time handling for Win9x and OS/2 part 1") Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> --- v2: be stricter about days. v3: style cleanup. Being stricter about days is slightly riskier than simply preventing the out ouf bounds array access. Please review carefully, etc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html