linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] [v2] m68k: mac: use time64

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.2.21.1807182201560.41@nippy.intranet>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 22:02:15 +1000 (AEST)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Joshua Thompson <funaho@...ai.org>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>,
        Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [v2] m68k: mac: use time64_t in RTC handling

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
> Applied and queued for v4.19, with the WARN_ON() dropped.
> 

The patch you've committed to your for-v4.19 branch has this hunk:

@@ -269,8 +275,12 @@ static long via_read_time(void)
                via_pram_command(0x89, &result.cdata[1]);
                via_pram_command(0x8D, &result.cdata[0]);
 
-               if (result.idata == last_result.idata)
+               if (result.idata == last_result.idata) {
+                       if (result.idata < RTC_OFFSET)
+                               result.idata += 0x100000000ull;
+
                        return result.idata - RTC_OFFSET;
+               }
 
                if (++count > 10)
                        break;

That looks bogus to me, since result.idata is a long.

Also, the following hunk seems a bit pointless (?)

@@ -291,11 +301,11 @@ static long via_read_time(void)
  * is basically any machine with Mac II-style ADB.
  */
 
-static void via_write_time(long time)
+static void via_write_time(time64_t time)
 {
        union {
                __u8 cdata[4];
-               long idata;
+               __u32 idata;
        } data;
        __u8 temp;
 

But if data.idata needs to be changed to __u32 here, why not change the 
same struct member in via_read_time() also?

--