linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: cros-ec: return -ETIME when refused to set alarms in the past

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

Message-ID: <5A94C863.5060504@rock-chips.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:54:27 +0800
From:   JeffyChen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
CC:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zyw@...k-chips.com,
        briannorris@...gle.com, dianders@...gle.com, jwerner@...omium.org,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: cros-ec: return -ETIME when refused to set alarms
 in the past

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your reply.

On 02/27/2018 02:37 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
>> >+	/* Don't set an alarm in the past. */
>> >+	if ((u32)alarm_time <= current_time)
>> >+		return -ETIME;
>> >+
>> >  	if (!alrm->enabled) {
>> >  		/*
>> >  		 * If the alarm is being disabled, send an alarm
>> >@@ -196,11 +200,7 @@ static int cros_ec_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
>> >  		alarm_offset = EC_RTC_ALARM_CLEAR;
>> >  		cros_ec_rtc->saved_alarm = (u32)alarm_time;
>> >  	} else {
>> >-		/* Don't set an alarm in the past. */
>> >-		if ((u32)alarm_time < current_time)
> It's probably worth noting in the commit message that you're also fixing
> the case where 'alarm_time == current_time'; in the current driver
> source, it*looks*  like you're setting a 0-second alarm. But in fact, 0
> means EC_RTC_ALARM_CLEAR, which would disable the alarm. So you are
> (correctly) returning -ETIME in that case.
Right, i'll rewrite the commit message, and move the check back here:)

>
> Brian
>