linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] rtc: Add support for limited alarm timer offsets

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: <202308161619050943672a@mail.local>
Date:   Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:19:05 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] rtc: Add support for limited alarm timer offsets

On 16/08/2023 08:24:39-0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 04:57:30PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 16/08/2023 06:39:30-0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > Some alarm timers are based on time offsets, not on absolute times.
> > > In some situations, the amount of time that can be scheduled in the
> > > future is limited. This may result in a refusal to suspend the system,
> > > causing substantial battery drain.
> > > 
> > > Some RTC alarm drivers remedy the situation by setting the alarm time
> > > to the maximum supported time if a request for an out-of-range timeout
> > > is made. This is not really desirable since it may result in unexpected
> > > early wakeups.
> > > 
> > > To reduce the impact of this problem, let RTC drivers report the maximum
> > > supported alarm timer offset. The code setting alarm timers can then
> > > decide if it wants to reject setting alarm timers to a larger value, if it
> > > wants to implement recurring alarms until the actually requested alarm
> > > time is met, or if it wants to accept the limited alarm time.
> > > 
> > > Only introduce the necessary variable into struct rtc_device.
> > > Code to set and use the variable will follow with subsequent patches.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/rtc.h | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/rtc.h b/include/linux/rtc.h
> > > index 1fd9c6a21ebe..b6d000ab1e5e 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/rtc.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/rtc.h
> > > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ struct rtc_device {
> > >  
> > >  	time64_t range_min;
> > >  	timeu64_t range_max;
> > > +	timeu64_t range_max_offset;
> > 
> > While range_min and range_max are for the wall clock time, I would
> > prefer using a name that would clearly mark this as an alarm related
> > variable.
> 
> Sure, no problem. Do you have a suggestion ? alarm_range_max or
> alarm_range_max_offset, maybe ? I'd also be happy to use some other
> term for 'offset' if you have a suggestion.

I don't really know, what about alarm_offset_max? This is the maximum
value of the offset for the alarm to the current time.


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