linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1806071643490.3181@T420s>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:43:59 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@...glemail.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
cc:     linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@...glemail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rtc: ftrtc010: let the core handle range

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

> The current range handling is highly suspicious. Anyway, let the core
> handle it.
> The RTC has a 32 bit counter on top of days + hh:mm:ss registers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> index 2cdc78ffeb17..61f798c6101f 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ftrtc010.c
> @@ -95,9 +95,6 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
>  	u32 sec, min, hour, day, offset;
>  	timeu64_t time;
>  
> -	if (tm->tm_year >= 2148)	/* EPOCH Year + 179 */
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
>  	time = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
>  
>  	sec = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
> @@ -120,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct rtc_class_ops ftrtc010_rtc_ops = {
>  
>  static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> +	u32 days, hour, min, sec;
>  	struct ftrtc010_rtc *rtc;
>  	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>  	struct resource *res;
> @@ -172,6 +170,15 @@ static int ftrtc010_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	rtc->rtc_dev->ops = &ftrtc010_rtc_ops;
>  
> +	sec  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_SECOND);
> +	min  = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_MINUTE);
> +	hour = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_HOUR);
> +	days = readl(rtc->rtc_base + FTRTC010_RTC_DAYS);
> +
> +	rtc->rtc_dev->range_min = (u64)days * 86400 + hour * 3600 +
> +				  min * 60 + sec;
> +	rtc->rtc_dev->range_max = U32_MAX + rtc->rtc_dev->range_min;
> +
>  	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, rtc->rtc_irq, ftrtc010_rtc_interrupt,
>  			       IRQF_SHARED, pdev->name, dev);
>  	if (unlikely(ret))
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
> 

Acked-by: Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@...glemail.com>