| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:50:44 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
Cc: a.zummo@...ertech.it, corbet@....net, arnd@...db.de,
broonie@...nel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] rtc: Add one offset seconds to expand RTC range
On 02/01/2018 at 13:10:07 +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> From our investigation for all RTC drivers, 1 driver will be expired before
> year 2017, 7 drivers will be expired before year 2038, 23 drivers will be
> expired before year 2069, 72 drivers will be expired before 2100 and 104
> drivers will be expired before 2106. Especially for these early expired
> drivers, we need to expand the RTC range to make the RTC can still work
> after the expired year.
>
> So we can expand the RTC range by adding one offset to the time when reading
> from hardware, and subtracting it when writing back. For example, if you have
> an RTC that can do 100 years, and currently is configured to be based in
> Jan 1 1970, so it can represents times from 1970 to 2069. Then if you change
> the start year from 1970 to 2000, which means it can represents times from
> 2000 to 2099. By adding or subtracting the offset produced by moving the wrap
> point, all times between 1970 and 1999 from RTC hardware could get interpreted
> as times from 2070 to 2099, but the interpretation of dates between 2000 and
> 2069 would not change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/rtc/class.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/rtc/interface.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/rtc.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/class.c b/drivers/rtc/class.c
> index 31fc0f1..8e59cf0 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/class.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/class.c
> @@ -211,6 +211,55 @@ static int rtc_device_get_id(struct device *dev)
> return id;
> }
>
> +static void rtc_device_get_offset(struct rtc_device *rtc)
> +{
> + u32 start_year;
> + int ret;
> +
> + rtc->offset_secs = 0;
> + rtc->start_secs = rtc->min_hw_secs;
> +
> + /*
> + * If RTC driver did not implement the range of RTC hardware device,
> + * then we can not expand the RTC range by adding or subtracting one
> + * offset.
> + */
> + if (!rtc->max_hw_secs)
> + return;
> +
> + ret = device_property_read_u32(rtc->dev.parent, "start-year",
> + &start_year);
> + if (ret)
> + return;
> +
I think we need to have a way for drivers to set the start_secs value
because then we can fix all the drivers using a variation of
if (tm->tm_year < 70)
tm->tm_year += 100;
The main issue is that they will want to set start_secs to 0 so we can't
use start_secs != 0 to know whether it has already been set. Maybe we
can rely on offset_secs being set.
> + /*
> + * Record the start time values in seconds, which are used to valid if
> + * the setting time values are in the new expanded range.
> + */
> + rtc->start_secs = max_t(time64_t, mktime64(start_year, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0),
> + rtc->min_hw_secs);
> +
> + /*
> + * If the start_secs is larger than the maximum seconds (max_hw_secs)
> + * support by RTC hardware, which means the minimum seconds
> + * (min_hw_secs) of RTC hardware will be mapped to start_secs by adding
> + * one offset, so the offset seconds calculation formula should be:
> + * rtc->offset_secs = rtc->start_secs - rtc->min_hw_secs;
> + *
> + * If the start_secs is less than max_hw_secs, then there is one region
> + * is overlapped between the original RTC hardware range and the new
> + * expanded range, and this overlapped region do not need to be mapped
> + * into the new expanded range due to it is valid for RTC device. So
> + * the minimum seconds of RTC hardware (min_hw_secs) should be mapped to
> + * max_hw_secs + 1, then the offset seconds formula should be:
> + * rtc->offset_secs = rtc->max_hw_secs - rtc->min_hw_secs + 1;
> + */
> + if (rtc->start_secs > rtc->max_hw_secs)
> + rtc->offset_secs = rtc->start_secs - rtc->min_hw_secs;
> + else
> + rtc->offset_secs = rtc->max_hw_secs - rtc->min_hw_secs + 1;
And so we have the case where start_secs < rtc->min_hw_secs. Those are
the RTC failing in 2069. Wee need to handle those drivers generically
here.
> +}
> +
> /**
> * rtc_device_register - register w/ RTC class
> * @dev: the device to register
> @@ -253,6 +302,8 @@ struct rtc_device *rtc_device_register(const char *name, struct device *dev,
> goto exit_ida;
> }
>
> + rtc_device_get_offset(rtc);
> +
> /* Check to see if there is an ALARM already set in hw */
> err = __rtc_read_alarm(rtc, &alrm);
>
> @@ -449,6 +500,8 @@ int __rtc_register_device(struct module *owner, struct rtc_device *rtc)
> return err;
> }
>
> + rtc_device_get_offset(rtc);
> +
> /* Check to see if there is an ALARM already set in hw */
> err = __rtc_read_alarm(rtc, &alrm);
> if (!err && !rtc_valid_tm(&alrm.time))
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/interface.c b/drivers/rtc/interface.c
> index c8090e3..eb96a90 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/interface.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/interface.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,46 @@
> static int rtc_timer_enqueue(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_timer *timer);
> static void rtc_timer_remove(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_timer *timer);
>
> +static void rtc_add_offset(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_time *tm)
> +{
> + time64_t secs;
> +
> + if (!rtc->offset_secs)
> + return;
> +
> + secs = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
> + /*
> + * Since the reading time values from RTC device are always less than
> + * rtc->max_hw_secs, then if the reading time values are larger than
> + * the rtc->start_secs, which means they did not subtract the offset
> + * when writing into RTC device, so we do not need to add the offset.
> + */
> + if (secs >= rtc->start_secs)
> + return;
> +
> + rtc_time64_to_tm(secs + rtc->offset_secs, tm);
> +}
> +
> +static void rtc_subtract_offset(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_time *tm)
> +{
> + time64_t secs;
> +
> + if (!rtc->offset_secs)
> + return;
> +
> + secs = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
> + /*
> + * If the setting time values are in the valid range of RTC hardware
> + * device, then no need to subtract the offset when setting time to RTC
> + * device. Otherwise we need to subtract the offset to make the time
> + * values are valid for RTC hardware device.
> + */
> + if (secs <= rtc->max_hw_secs)
> + return;
> +
> + rtc_time64_to_tm(secs - rtc->offset_secs, tm);
> +}
> +
> static int __rtc_read_time(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_time *tm)
> {
> int err;
> @@ -36,6 +76,8 @@ static int __rtc_read_time(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_time *tm)
> return err;
> }
>
> + rtc_add_offset(rtc, tm);
> +
> err = rtc_valid_tm(tm);
> if (err < 0)
> dev_dbg(&rtc->dev, "read_time: rtc_time isn't valid\n");
> @@ -69,6 +111,8 @@ int rtc_set_time(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_time *tm)
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> + rtc_subtract_offset(rtc, tm);
> +
> err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rtc->ops_lock);
> if (err)
> return err;
> @@ -123,6 +167,8 @@ static int rtc_read_alarm_internal(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_wkalrm *al
> }
>
> mutex_unlock(&rtc->ops_lock);
> +
> + rtc_add_offset(rtc, &alarm->time);
> return err;
> }
>
> @@ -338,6 +384,7 @@ static int __rtc_set_alarm(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_wkalrm *alarm)
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> + rtc_subtract_offset(rtc, &alarm->time);
> scheduled = rtc_tm_to_time64(&alarm->time);
>
> /* Make sure we're not setting alarms in the past */
> @@ -1074,7 +1121,8 @@ int rtc_read_range(struct rtc_device *rtc, time64_t *max_hw_secs,
> * @ tm: time values need to valid.
> *
> * Only the rtc->max_hw_secs was set, then we can valid if the setting time
> - * values are beyond the RTC range.
> + * values are beyond the RTC range. When drivers set one start time values,
> + * we need to valid if the setting time values are in the new expanded range.
> */
> int rtc_valid_range(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_time *tm)
> {
> @@ -1084,7 +1132,8 @@ int rtc_valid_range(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_time *tm)
> return 0;
>
> secs = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
> - if (secs < rtc->min_hw_secs || secs > rtc->max_hw_secs)
> + if (secs < rtc->start_secs ||
> + secs > (rtc->start_secs + rtc->max_hw_secs - rtc->min_hw_secs))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> return 0;
> diff --git a/include/linux/rtc.h b/include/linux/rtc.h
> index 19a8989..11879b7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rtc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rtc.h
> @@ -156,6 +156,8 @@ struct rtc_device {
>
> time64_t max_hw_secs;
> time64_t min_hw_secs;
> + time64_t start_secs;
> + time64_t offset_secs;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RTC_INTF_DEV_UIE_EMUL
> struct work_struct uie_task;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists