Answer in brief
CVE-2024-50195 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime(). The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
Answer in brief
CVE-2024-50195 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime(). The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <29f085345cde24566efb751f39e5d367c381c584 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <e0c966bd3e31911b57ef76cec4c5796ebd88e512 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <673a1c5a2998acbd429d6286e6cad10f17f4f073 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <c8789fbe2bbf75845e45302cba6ffa44e1884d01 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <27abbde44b6e71ee3891de13e1a228aa7ce95bfe || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <a3f169e398215e71361774d13bf91a0101283ac2 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <1ff7247101af723731ea42ed565d54fb8f341264 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <d8794ac20a299b647ba9958f6d657051fc51a540 | 29f085345cde24566efb751f39e5d367c381c584, e0c966bd3e31911b57ef76cec4c5796ebd88e512, 673a1c5a2998acbd429d6286e6cad10f17f4f073, c8789fbe2bbf75845e45302cba6ffa44e1884d01, 27abbde44b6e71ee3891de13e1a228aa7ce95bfe, a3f169e398215e71361774d13bf91a0101283ac2, 1ff7247101af723731ea42ed565d54fb8f341264, d8794ac20a299b647ba9958f6d657051fc51a540 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 2.6.39 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Nov 8, 2024
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 5, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 5, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() 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.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <29f085345cde24566efb751f39e5d367c381c584 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <e0c966bd3e31911b57ef76cec4c5796ebd88e512 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <673a1c5a2998acbd429d6286e6cad10f17f4f073 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <c8789fbe2bbf75845e45302cba6ffa44e1884d01 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <27abbde44b6e71ee3891de13e1a228aa7ce95bfe || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <a3f169e398215e71361774d13bf91a0101283ac2 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <1ff7247101af723731ea42ed565d54fb8f341264 || >=0606f422b453f76c31ab2b1bd52943ff06a2dcf2 <d8794ac20a299b647ba9958f6d657051fc51a540 | 29f085345cde24566efb751f39e5d367c381c584, e0c966bd3e31911b57ef76cec4c5796ebd88e512, 673a1c5a2998acbd429d6286e6cad10f17f4f073, c8789fbe2bbf75845e45302cba6ffa44e1884d01, 27abbde44b6e71ee3891de13e1a228aa7ce95bfe, a3f169e398215e71361774d13bf91a0101283ac2, 1ff7247101af723731ea42ed565d54fb8f341264, d8794ac20a299b647ba9958f6d657051fc51a540 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 2.6.39 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Nov 8, 2024
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 5, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 5, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() 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.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.