linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] rtc: mc146818: Dont test for bit 0-5 in Register D

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: <gh7dnro88q.fsf@gouders.net>
Date:   Mon, 01 Feb 2021 21:15:01 +0100
From:   Dirk Gouders <dirk@...ders.net>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru>,
        Mickaël Salaün 
        <mic@...ikod.net>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] rtc: mc146818: Dont test for bit 0-5 in Register D

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:

> The recent change to validate the RTC turned out to be overly tight.
>
> While it cures the problem on the reporters machine it breaks machines
> with Intel chipsets which use bit 0-5 of the D register. So check only
> for bit 6 being 0 which is the case on these Intel machines as well.
>
> Fixes: 211e5db19d15 ("rtc: mc146818: Detect and handle broken RTCs")
> Reported-by: Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru>
> Reported-by: Dirk Gouders <dirk@...ders.net>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
> V2: Provide the actual delta patch. Should have stayed away from
>     computers today....

I tested V2 and it eliminates the warning, here.

Thank you,

Dirk

> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c         |    4 ++--
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-mc146818-lib.c |    4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
> @@ -805,8 +805,8 @@ cmos_do_probe(struct device *dev, struct
>  
>  	spin_lock_irq(&rtc_lock);
>  
> -	/* Ensure that the RTC is accessible. Bit 0-6 must be 0! */
> -	if ((CMOS_READ(RTC_VALID) & 0x7f) != 0) {
> +	/* Ensure that the RTC is accessible. Bit 6 must be 0! */
> +	if ((CMOS_READ(RTC_VALID) & 0x40) != 0) {
>  		spin_unlock_irq(&rtc_lock);
>  		dev_warn(dev, "not accessible\n");
>  		retval = -ENXIO;
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mc146818-lib.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mc146818-lib.c
> @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@ unsigned int mc146818_get_time(struct rt
>  
>  again:
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&rtc_lock, flags);
> -	/* Ensure that the RTC is accessible. Bit 0-6 must be 0! */
> -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE((CMOS_READ(RTC_VALID) & 0x7f) != 0)) {
> +	/* Ensure that the RTC is accessible. Bit 6 must be 0! */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE((CMOS_READ(RTC_VALID) & 0x40) != 0)) {
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtc_lock, flags);
>  		memset(time, 0xff, sizeof(*time));
>  		return 0;