linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: enable rtc-efi

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110708070952.GA3004@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:09:52 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, dannf@...com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: enable rtc-efi

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 07:46:35AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:

>    Having thought some more about this, I don't think this should be
>    handled in the RTC driver. Instead, arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c ought
>    to be handling this - also for all other eventual callers of the time
>    related calls. In other words, the bug has been existing before my
>    patch (and it just exposes it by introducing callers of the incompletely
>    implemented backing functions).

I'm in the process of removing this code from arch/x86, since it's 
functionally identical to the IA64 version. That's probably going to 
complicate this approach a little, but you're right that it makes sense 
for the locking to be at the backend rather than in rtc-efi.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/