nptl: pthread_rwlock: Move timeout validation into _full functions

As recommended by the comments in the implementations of
pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock and pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock, let's move
the timeout validity checks into the corresponding pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full
and pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full functions. Since these functions may be
called with abstime == NULL, an extra check for that is necessary too.

	* nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c (__pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full):
	Check validity of abstime parameter.
	(__pthread_rwlock_rwlock_full): Likewise.
	* nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock.c
	* (pthread_rwlock_timedrdlock):
	Remove check for validity of abstime parameter.
	* nptl/pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock.c
	* (pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock):
	Likewise.

Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>

1 files changed, 20 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c
index 89ba21ac7c..120b880acf 100644
--- a/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c
+++ b/nptl/pthread_rwlock_common.c
@@ -282,6 +282,16 @@ __pthread_rwlock_rdlock_full (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock,
 {
   unsigned int r;
 
+  /* Make sure any passed in timeout value is valid.  Note that the previous
+     implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there
+     would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the
+     validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be
+     immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it).  */
+  if (abstime
+      && __glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000
+      || abstime->tv_nsec < 0))
+    return EINVAL;
+
   /* Make sure we are not holding the rwlock as a writer.  This is a deadlock
      situation we recognize and report.  */
   if (__glibc_unlikely (atomic_load_relaxed (&rwlock->__data.__cur_writer)
@@ -576,6 +586,16 @@ static __always_inline int
 __pthread_rwlock_wrlock_full (pthread_rwlock_t *rwlock,
     const struct timespec *abstime)
 {
+  /* Make sure any passed in timeout value is valid.  Note that the previous
+     implementation assumed that this check *must* not be performed if there
+     would in fact be no blocking; however, POSIX only requires that "the
+     validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if the lock can be
+     immediately acquired" (i.e., we need not but may check it).  */
+  if (abstime
+      && __glibc_unlikely (abstime->tv_nsec >= 1000000000
+      || abstime->tv_nsec < 0))
+    return EINVAL;
+
   /* Make sure we are not holding the rwlock as a writer.  This is a deadlock
      situation we recognize and report.  */
   if (__glibc_unlikely (atomic_load_relaxed (&rwlock->__data.__cur_writer)