As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core
checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling
ptp->info->settime64().

As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or
tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,
which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is
consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()
only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is
in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()
in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.

There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to
write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer
has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as
hclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),
and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 0606f422 ("posix clocks: Introduce dynamic clocks")
Acked-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20241009072302.1754567-2-ruanjinjie@huawei.comSigned-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>