linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] rtc: s3c: Add time 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: <YW8E6oeIoRdpmPL8@piout.net>
Date:   Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:48:26 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Samsung SOC <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] rtc: s3c: Add time range

On 19/10/2021 19:35:26+0300, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 19:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 19/10/2021 18:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 19/10/2021 15:17, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > >> This RTC driver only accepts dates from 2000 to 2099 year. It starts
> > >> counting from 2000 to avoid Y2K problem,
> > >
> > > 1. Where is the minimum (2000) year set in the RTC driver?
> >
> > Ah, indeed. I found it now in the driver.
> >
> > >
> > >> and S3C RTC only supports 100
> > >
> > > On some of the devices 100, on some 1000, therefore, no. This does not
> > > look correct.
> >
> > That part of sentence is still incorrect, but change itself makes sense.
> > Driver does not support <2000.
> >
> 
> Driver itself does not allow setting year >= 2100:
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< cut here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>     if (year < 0 || year >= 100) {
>         dev_err(dev, "rtc only supports 100 years\n");
>         return -EINVAL;
>     }
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< cut here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> Devices might allow it, so the commit message phrasing is incorrect
> and should be replaced, yes. But the code should be correct. Should I
> send v2 with fixed commit message?
> 

It would be better to pass the proper values because else nobody will
ever come back and fix it (hence why I didn't move that driver to
devm_rtc_register_device yet).

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