Re: [PATCH net] ptp: netc: fix period truncation and potential divide-by-zero in PEROUT

On 26-08-21 01:52:37, Wei Fang wrote:
> 
> NXP Confidential

Which part is confidential ?

> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 11:33:41AM +0800, [email protected] wrote:
> > > From: Wei Fang <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > The max_period bound in net_timer_enable_perout() was computed as:
> > >
> > >   max_period = (u64)NETC_TMR_DEFAULT_FIPER + integral_period;
> > >
> > > which exceeds U32_MAX when integral_period > 0 (e.g. 0x100000002 for
> > > the default 333333333 Hz clock). A period_ns that passes this check but
> > > exceeds U32_MAX is then silently truncated when stored into the u32
> > > struct netc_pp::period field.
> > >
> > > A truncated value of zero can reach netc_timer_set_perout_alarm(), where
> > > the local u32 period variable would also be 0, causing a divide-by-zero
> > > in roundup_u64(delta, period) whenever the stime < min_time branch is
> > > taken (which always happens for a start time of {0, 0}).
> > >
> > > Additionally, netc_timer_enable_periodic_pulse() and
> > > netc_timer_enable_fiper() both compute:
> > >
> > >   fiper = pp->period - integral_period;
> > >
> > > A zero pp->period results in an unsigned wraparound to 0xFFFFFFFD,
> > > mis-programming the FIPER hardware register.
> > >
> > > Fix all three issues by capping max_period at NETC_TMR_DEFAULT_FIPER
> > > (0xFFFFFFFF). This ensures that any period_ns passing the range check
> > > fits in a u32 without truncation, so the stored value is always valid
> > > and non-zero. The accepted range is reduced by integral_period ns
> > > (typically only a few nanoseconds), which is negligible in practice.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 671e266835b8 ("ptp: netc: add periodic pulse output support")
> > > Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <[email protected]>
> >
> > If so, then I think NETC_TMR_DEFAULT_FIPER can simply be used in
> > place of max_period.
> 
> Yes, I also considered this modification, but ultimately chose this lazy
> approach. Since you brought it up, I will improve it in the next version.
> Thanks. :)

Hopefully, not the lazy part. ;-)