linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: class: support hctosys from modular RTC drivers

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

Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:36:27 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: class: support hctosys from modular RTC drivers

On 06/11/2019 15:37:49-0800, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On 11/6/19 3:19 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 06/11/2019 11:46:25-0800, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > > Due to distribution constraints it may not be possible to statically
> > > compile the required RTC driver into the kernel.
> > > 
> > > Expand RTC_HCTOSYS support to cover all RTC devices (statically compiled
> > > or not) by checking at the end of RTC device registration whether the
> > > time should be synced.
> > > 
> > 
> > This does not really help distributions because most of them will still
> > have "rtc0" hardcoded and rtc0 is often the rtc that shouldn't be used.
> 
> Just for my own edification, why is that? Is rtc0 normally useless on PC for
> some reason?
> 

On PC, rtc0 is probably fine which is not the case for other
architectures where rtc0 is the SoC RTC and is often not battery backed.

> On the platforms I'm working with I believe it can be assured that rtc0 will
> be the correct rtc. That doesn't help typical distributions though.
> 
> What about a kernel parameter to optionally override the rtc hctosys device
> at runtime?
> 

What about keeping that in userspace instead which is way easier than
messing with kernel parameters?

> > Can't you move away from HCTOSYS and do the correct thing in userspace
> > instead of the crap hctosys is doing?
> 
> Yes, I just figured it's a small change, and if hctosys can be made to work
> might as well use that.

The fact is that hctosys is more related to time keeping than it is to
the RTC subsytem. It also does a very poor job setting the system time
because adding 0.5s is not the smartest thing to do. The rtc granularity
is indeed 1 second but is can be very precisely set.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com