linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: proc: printf using alarm for alrm

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: <20181206203827.GE8952@piout.net>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:38:27 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     yuankuiz@...eaurora.org
Cc:     a.zummo@...ertech.it, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: proc: printf using alarm for alrm

On 06/12/2018 15:22:51+0800, yuankuiz@...eaurora.org wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>     Kindly, this format change formats the rtc dump from:
>         alrm_time	: 00:00:00
>         alrm_date	: 1970-01-01
>         alarm_IRQ	: no
>         alrm_pending	: no
> 
>     to:
>         alarm time	: 00:00:00
>         alarm date	: 1970-01-01
>         alarm IRQ	: no
>         alarm pending	: no
> 

Yes, and this would break the ABI as this file is in procfs. This is not
something I'm willing to do, especially since this file has been
deprecated since 2006.

>     Thanks,
> BR//John Zhao
> 
> On 2018-12-04 05:29 PM, yuankuiz@...eaurora.org wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > From 549bae59445c5ec67dd6a46f3ea4f58966d40c9b
> > 
> > Current the struct rtc_wkalrm is dumped as
> > "alrm_" by printing converted from the struct
> > name of "alrm.*" directly. Shall we use the
> > "alarm *" to replace the "alrm_*" during this
> > dumping?
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: John Zhao <yuankuiz@...eaurora.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c
> > index a9dd921..d4a3c91 100644
> > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c
> > @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ static int rtc_proc_show(struct seq_file *seq, void
> > *offset)
> > 
> >  	err = rtc_read_alarm(rtc, &alrm);
> >  	if (err == 0) {
> > -		seq_printf(seq, "alrm_time\t: ");
> > +		seq_printf(seq, "alarm time\t: ");
> >  		if ((unsigned int)alrm.time.tm_hour <= 24)
> >  			seq_printf(seq, "%02d:", alrm.time.tm_hour);
> >  		else
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static int rtc_proc_show(struct seq_file *seq, void
> > *offset)
> >  		else
> >  			seq_printf(seq, "**\n");
> > 
> > -		seq_printf(seq, "alrm_date\t: ");
> > +		seq_printf(seq, "alarm date\t: ");
> >  		if ((unsigned int)alrm.time.tm_year <= 200)
> >  			seq_printf(seq, "%04d-", alrm.time.tm_year + 1900);
> >  		else
> > @@ -85,9 +85,9 @@ static int rtc_proc_show(struct seq_file *seq, void
> > *offset)
> >  			seq_printf(seq, "%02d\n", alrm.time.tm_mday);
> >  		else
> >  			seq_printf(seq, "**\n");
> > -		seq_printf(seq, "alarm_IRQ\t: %s\n",
> > +		seq_printf(seq, "alarm IRQ\t: %s\n",
> >  				alrm.enabled ? "yes" : "no");
> > -		seq_printf(seq, "alrm_pending\t: %s\n",
> > +		seq_printf(seq, "alarm pending\t: %s\n",
> >  				alrm.pending ? "yes" : "no");
> >  		seq_printf(seq, "update IRQ enabled\t: %s\n",
> >  			(rtc->uie_rtctimer.enabled) ? "yes" : "no");

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