# CVE-2024-50195: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()

> Missing input validation in Linux kernel PTP clock setting allows invalid time values to reach drivers, potentially causing system instability or crashes.

- **Severity:** High 7.1 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H`)
- **Exploited in the wild:** Not known
- **Login needed:** Any signed-in user
- **Attackable:** Local or same network only
- **Victim action needed:** Not needed
- **Fix available:** Yes
- **Published:** 8 Nov 2024
- **Updated:** 5 Aug 2026
- **Also known as:** AZL-53420, AZL-53739, BELL-CVE-2024-50195, DEBIAN-CVE-2024-50195, GHSA-v787-c3f2-p88r, UBUNTU-CVE-2024-50195

## What is CVE-2024-50195?

CVE-2024-50195 is a high-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 8 Nov 2024. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.

### Official description

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.

Weakness: CWE-754 (Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions)

## Which versions are affected by CVE-2024-50195?

It affects 1 product.


Products: Linux kernel.

## How do I fix CVE-2024-50195?

Apply the vendor's patch.

## Is CVE-2024-50195 being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of CVE-2024-50195 in the wild and no public exploit code.

## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel

- [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild)

## Fix prompt for AI coding agents

```text
Check this codebase for CVE-2024-50195 and fix it if it is affected.

What it is: CVE-2024-50195 is a high-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 8 Nov 2024. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.
Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2024-50195 in the wild and no public exploit code.

Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page.

Task:
1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.
2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.
3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.
4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.
5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.

Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-50195/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-50195/index.md)
```

## Sources

- CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-50195
- NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-50195
- OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2024-50195

---
From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-50195/
Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.