linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Enable backup switch mode on RTCs via devicetree

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: <7268b05b-bbb1-ec4d-6a05-f5ccbdfeed90@kontron.de>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 10:18:08 +0100
From:   Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Frieder Schrempf <frieder@...s.de>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Enable backup switch mode on RTCs via devicetree

Hi Alexandre,

On 01.02.23 17:26, Frieder Schrempf wrote:
> On 01.02.23 17:15, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> You can't do that, this breaks an important use case and it is the
>> reason why I didn't use device tree in the beginning. What is wrong with
>> setting BSM from userspace? You will anyway have to set the time and
>> date from userspace for it to be saved.
> 
> Ok, I was already afraid there is something I missed. Can you give a
> short explanation of what use case this would break?
> 
> There is nothing wrong with setting BSM from userspace. It's just the
> fact that users expect BSM to be enabled in any case as there is a
> battery on the board. It is much more effort to ensure that production,
> user, etc. are aware of an extra step required than to let the kernel
> deal with it behind the scenes.

Would you mind elaborating on your argument that this would break stuff?
I currently don't see how an additional optional devicetree property
would break anything.

Thanks
Frieder