linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/kernel/rtc: add sanity check for RTC date and time

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 09:07:46 +0000
From:   "Zeh, Werner" <werner.zeh@...mens.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
CC:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "a.zummo@...ertech.it" <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] x86/kernel/rtc: add sanity check for RTC date and
 time

> I'm not the maintainer for that part of the kernel, I expect this to go through
> the x86 tree.

OK, understood. Thank you.
Any hint whom I can contact directly in this regard?
I had a hard time to debug this issue and it would be a pity if it will not make it in possibly causing issues for other users.

Werner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:50 AM
> To: Zeh, Werner (DI MC MTS SP HW 1) <werner.zeh@...mens.com>
> Cc: tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...hat.com; bp@...en8.de; x86@...nel.org;
> a.zummo@...ertech.it; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/kernel/rtc: add sanity check for RTC date and
> time
>
> Hello,
>
> On 09/12/2021 08:05:10+0000, Zeh, Werner wrote:
> > Hi Alexandre.
> >
> > Is there anything more I can do for that patch in order to get some process
> on it?
> > Or why is this patch stuck for a long time?
> >
>
> I'm not the maintainer for that part of the kernel, I expect this to go through
> the x86 tree.
>
> > Thanks
> > Werner
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 4:11 PM
> > > To: Zeh, Werner (DI MC MTS SP HW 1) <werner.zeh@...mens.com>
> > > Cc: tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...hat.com; bp@...en8.de;
> > > x86@...nel.org; a.zummo@...ertech.it; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/kernel/rtc: add sanity check for RTC
> > > date and time
> > >
> > > On 30/06/2021 06:25:44+0000, Zeh, Werner wrote:
> > > > Hi Alexandre
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 24/06/2021 10:15:07+0200, Werner Zeh wrote:
> > > > > > The timekeeper is synchronized with the CMOS RTC when it is
> > > initialized.
> > > > > > If the RTC buffering is bad (not buffered at all, empty
> > > > > > battery) the RTC registers can contain random data. In order
> > > > > > to avoid date and time being completely rubbish check the
> > > > > > sanity of the registers before calling mktime64. If the values
> > > > > > are not valid, set tv_sec to 0 so that at least the starting time is valid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Werner Zeh <werner.zeh@...mens.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > [resent due to wrong lkml address] [added RTC maintainers to
> > > > > > the recipients] This change introduces the same validity check
> > > > > > that is already done in drivers/rtc/interface.c.
> > > > > > If it is not done here, the timekeeper can be set up wrongly
> > > > > > in the first run and won't be corrected once the RTC driver is
> > > > > > started because the validity check in the RTC driver drops the
> > > > > > time and date due to invalid entries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c
> > > > > > index
> > > > > > 586f718b8e95..f4af7b18c6c0 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c
> > > > > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > > > > >  #include <linux/export.h>
> > > > > >  #include <linux/pnp.h>
> > > > > >  #include <linux/of.h>
> > > > > > +#include <linux/rtc.h>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  #include <asm/vsyscall.h>
> > > > > >  #include <asm/x86_init.h>
> > > > > > @@ -64,6 +65,7 @@ void mach_get_cmos_time(struct timespec64
> > > *now)
> > > > > {
> > > > > >         unsigned int status, year, mon, day, hour, min, sec, century = 0;
> > > > > >         unsigned long flags;
> > > > > > +       struct rtc_time tm = {0};
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         /*
> > > > > >          * If pm_trace abused the RTC as storage, set the
> > > > > > timespec to 0, @@
> > > > > > -118,7 +120,15 @@ void mach_get_cmos_time(struct timespec64
> > > *now)
> > > > > >         } else
> > > > > >                 year += CMOS_YEARS_OFFS;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -       now->tv_sec = mktime64(year, mon, day, hour, min, sec);
> > > > > > +       tm.tm_sec = sec;
> > > > > > +       tm.tm_min = min;
> > > > > > +       tm.tm_hour = hour;
> > > > > > +       tm.tm_mday = day;
> > > > > > +       tm.tm_mon = mon;
> > > > > > +       tm.tm_year = year;
> > > > > > +       now->tv_sec = 0;
> > > > > > +       if (rtc_valid_tm(&tm) == 0)
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't that make the x86 architecture depend on CONFIG_RTC_LIB?
> > > > >
> > > > CONFIG_RTC_LIB is already default enabled for x86, see
> arch/x86/Kconfig.
> > > > Do you have any other dependencies in mind I have overseen?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope, everything is fine, it would be better if we could get rid of
> > > mach_get_cmos_time but I don't have any clue as to why this is
> necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and
> > > Kernel engineering
> > >
> https://bootlin.com
> >
>
> --
> Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel
> engineering
> https://bootlin.com