linux-kernel - [PATCH] rtc: cmos: avoid taking rtc

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zxv8QWR21AV4ztC5@google.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:14:57 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Cc: Mateusz Jończyk <mat.jonczyk@...pl>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Joy Chakraborty <joychakr@...gle.com>, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] rtc: cmos: avoid taking rtc_lock for extended period of time

On my device reading entirety of /sys/devices/pnp0/00:03/cmos_nvram0/nvmem
takes about 9 msec during which time interrupts are off on the CPU that
does the read and the thread that performs the read can not be migrated
or preempted by another higher priority thread (RT or not).

Allow readers and writers be preempted by taking and releasing rtc_lock
spinlock for each individual byte read or written rather than once per
read/write request.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
---

v2: use "return 0;" instead of "return count;" (which should be the same
    behavior-wise because count is 0 by that point) to show intent
    clearer (per feedback from Mateusz Jończyk)

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Zxqv9KYnBdtnuqox@google.com

 drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c | 31 +++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
index 35dca2accbb8..5849d2970bba 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
@@ -645,18 +645,17 @@ static int cmos_nvram_read(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val,
 	unsigned char *buf = val;
 
 	off += NVRAM_OFFSET;
-	spin_lock_irq(&rtc_lock);
-	for (; count; count--, off++) {
+	for (; count; count--, off++, buf++) {
+		guard(spinlock_irq)(&rtc_lock);
 		if (off < 128)
-			*buf++ = CMOS_READ(off);
+			*buf = CMOS_READ(off);
 		else if (can_bank2)
-			*buf++ = cmos_read_bank2(off);
+			*buf = cmos_read_bank2(off);
 		else
-			break;
+			return -EIO;
 	}
-	spin_unlock_irq(&rtc_lock);
 
-	return count ? -EIO : 0;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int cmos_nvram_write(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val,
@@ -671,23 +670,23 @@ static int cmos_nvram_write(void *priv, unsigned int off, void *val,
 	 * NVRAM to update, updating checksums is also part of its job.
 	 */
 	off += NVRAM_OFFSET;
-	spin_lock_irq(&rtc_lock);
-	for (; count; count--, off++) {
+	for (; count; count--, off++, buf++) {
 		/* don't trash RTC registers */
 		if (off == cmos->day_alrm
 				|| off == cmos->mon_alrm
 				|| off == cmos->century)
-			buf++;
-		else if (off < 128)
-			CMOS_WRITE(*buf++, off);
+			continue;
+
+		guard(spinlock_irq)(&rtc_lock);
+		if (off < 128)
+			CMOS_WRITE(*buf, off);
 		else if (can_bank2)
-			cmos_write_bank2(*buf++, off);
+			cmos_write_bank2(*buf, off);
 		else
-			break;
+			return -EIO;
 	}
-	spin_unlock_irq(&rtc_lock);
 
-	return count ? -EIO : 0;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 /*----------------------------------------------------------------*/
-- 
2.47.0.163.g1226f6d8fa-goog


-- 
Dmitry