linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] RTC regression fixups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Feb 2011 18:31:37 -0200
From:	Marcelo Roberto Jimenez <mroberto@...i.cetuc.puc-rio.br>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] RTC regression fixups

Hi John,

Currently, the RTC driver _must_ declare the read_alarm() callback,
even if it does nothing. But the code in drivers/rtc/interface.c does

	if (rtc->ops == NULL)
		err = -ENODEV;
	else if (!rtc->ops->read_alarm)
		err = -EINVAL;
	else {
		memset(alarm, 0, sizeof(struct rtc_wkalrm));
		alarm->enabled = rtc->aie_timer.enabled;
		alarm->time = rtc_ktime_to_tm(rtc->aie_timer.node.expires);
	}

The read_alarm() callback is not being performed.

Two questions:

1 - Should the callback be removed or should it be kept and called in
the else part?

2 - In case we are keeping it, should it be enforced like it is now,
or should it be kept optional? I'd rather have it optional, that means
less useless code in the drivers.

Regards,
Marcelo.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/