From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Aug 29 20:03:24 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B9010656A5;
	Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:03:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vwe@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6D58FC1B;
	Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:03:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7TK3OKE046142;
	Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:03:24 GMT
	(envelope-from vwe@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from vwe@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o7TK3OZl046138;
	Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:03:24 GMT (envelope-from vwe)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:03:24 GMT
Message-Id: <201008292003.o7TK3OZl046138@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: gcooper@FreeBSD.org, vwe@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
From: vwe@FreeBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: kern/149980: [patch] negative value integer to nanosleep(2)
	should fail with EINVAL
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:03:24 -0000

Old Synopsis: [PATCH] negative value integer to nanosleep(2) should fail with EINVAL
New Synopsis: [patch] negative value integer to nanosleep(2) should fail with EINVAL

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: vwe
State-Changed-When: Sun Aug 29 20:00:22 UTC 2010
State-Changed-Why: 
double checked that and it's looking reasonable
I think the checks for 'tv_nsec < 0' and 'tv_sec < 0' can be made in one go,
but IMO it should not make a difference (assembler wise):

Index: sys/kern/kern_time.c
===================================================================
--- sys/kern/kern_time.c	(revision 211522)
+++ sys/kern/kern_time.c	(working copy)
@@ -362,9 +362,9 @@
 	struct timeval tv;
 	int error;
 
-	if (rqt->tv_nsec < 0 || rqt->tv_nsec >= 1000000000)
+	if (rqt->tv_nsec < 0 || rqt->tv_nsec >= 1000000000 || rqt->tv_sec < 0)
 		return (EINVAL);
-	if (rqt->tv_sec < 0 || (rqt->tv_sec == 0 && rqt->tv_nsec == 0))
+	if (rqt->tv_sec == 0 && rqt->tv_nsec == 0)
 		return (0);
 	getnanouptime(&ts);
 	timespecadd(&ts, rqt);


http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=149980