linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] m68k: Fix off-by-one calendar month

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:48:44 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Sam Creasey <sammy@...my.net>, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k: Fix off-by-one calendar month

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 3:02 AM, Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au> wrote:

> diff --git a/arch/m68k/kernel/time.c b/arch/m68k/kernel/time.c
> index 97dd4e26f234..6b4389a6e8ea 100644
> --- a/arch/m68k/kernel/time.c
> +++ b/arch/m68k/kernel/time.c
> @@ -74,17 +74,17 @@ static irqreturn_t timer_interrupt(int irq, void *dummy)
>  void read_persistent_clock(struct timespec *ts)
>  {
>         struct rtc_time time;
> +
>         ts->tv_sec = 0;
>         ts->tv_nsec = 0;
>
> -       if (mach_hwclk) {
> -               mach_hwclk(0, &time);
> +       if (!mach_hwclk)
> +               return;
> +
> +       mach_hwclk(0, &time);
>
> -               if ((time.tm_year += 1900) < 1970)
> -                       time.tm_year += 100;
> -               ts->tv_sec = mktime(time.tm_year, time.tm_mon, time.tm_mday,
> -                                     time.tm_hour, time.tm_min, time.tm_sec);
> -       }
> +       ts->tv_sec = mktime(time.tm_year + 1900, time.tm_mon + 1, time.tm_mday,
> +                           time.tm_hour, time.tm_min, time.tm_sec);
>  }

This clashes with a patch I had planned to submit today, but otherwise
looks correct and. I'll respin my patch on top of yours. Since I've taken
a good look at your changes in the meantime

Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

      Arnd