linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: class: support hctosys from modular RTC drivers

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]

Date:   Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:35:02 -0800
From:   Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: class: support hctosys from modular RTC drivers

On 12/27/19 12:26 PM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On 11/15/19 5:36 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> On 06/11/2019 15:37:49-0800, Steve Muckle wrote:
>>> On 11/6/19 3:19 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>>> On 06/11/2019 11:46:25-0800, Steve Muckle wrote:
>>>>> Due to distribution constraints it may not be possible to statically
>>>>> compile the required RTC driver into the kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Expand RTC_HCTOSYS support to cover all RTC devices (statically compiled
>>>>> or not) by checking at the end of RTC device registration whether the
>>>>> time should be synced.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This does not really help distributions because most of them will still
>>>> have "rtc0" hardcoded and rtc0 is often the rtc that shouldn't be used.
>>>
>>> Just for my own edification, why is that? Is rtc0 normally useless on PC for
>>> some reason?
>>>
>>
>> On PC, rtc0 is probably fine which is not the case for other
>> architectures where rtc0 is the SoC RTC and is often not battery backed.
>>
>>> On the platforms I'm working with I believe it can be assured that rtc0 will
>>> be the correct rtc. That doesn't help typical distributions though.
>>>
>>> What about a kernel parameter to optionally override the rtc hctosys device
>>> at runtime?
>>>
>>
>> What about keeping that in userspace instead which is way easier than
>> messing with kernel parameters?
> 
> This should ideally happen before file systems are mounted so I don't
> see many alternatives for communicating which RTC should be used.
> Android uses the kernel command line for userspace parameters as well
> and that's an option but that defeats part of the value of doing it in
> userspace IMO. There's also device tree but I'm not sure this belongs there.
> 
> Hctosys is also saving and restoring the system time on suspend/resume.
> It seems more efficient to me to do this (which happens very frequently
> on an Android device) in the kernel as opposed to in userspace.
> 
> If I set the initial system time from the rtc in userspace but continue
> to rely on the hctosys suspend/resume code, as it stands there will be a
> window after the rtc driver is loaded but before the system time is set
> where if suspend is entered, the correct time in the rtc will be lost.
 >
>>>> Can't you move away from HCTOSYS and do the correct thing in userspace
>>>> instead of the crap hctosys is doing?
>>>
>>> Yes, I just figured it's a small change, and if hctosys can be made to work
>>> might as well use that.
>>
>> The fact is that hctosys is more related to time keeping than it is to
>> the RTC subsytem. It also does a very poor job setting the system time
>> because adding 0.5s is not the smartest thing to do. The rtc granularity
>> is indeed 1 second but is can be very precisely set.
 >
> No argument with that, but millions of devices successfully rely on it
> today. AFAICT this simple patch doesn't make anything worse. Together
> with a change to support a kernel parameter for runtime rtc selection,
> it should allow RTC drivers to be modularized on many systems. Can it be
> adopted as a stopgap measure?

Hi Alexandre, ping...