From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@stratus.com>
To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<rtc-linux@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>
Subject: [rtc-linux] Re: __rtc_read_alarm missing month/year field bug?
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:36:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57716404.9080204@stratus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5768148E.8090304@stratus.com>
On 06/20/2016 12:06 PM, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> Hello Alessandro and Alexandre,
>
> I noticed an interesting cmos_rtc.rtc.aie_timer on a Stratus machine
> running the 4.6 kernel, with an expiration time that puts the alarm way
> out into next year. This is easily reproducible on this machine by
> setting a wakealarm sometime in the near future, then rebooting.
>
> From a fresh boot:
>
> % cat /proc/driver/rtc
> rtc_time : 17:55:10
> rtc_date : 2016-06-09
> alrm_time : 14:04:37
> alrm_date : 2017-06-09 << 2017 ?
> alarm_IRQ : no
> alrm_pending : no
> update IRQ enabled : no
> periodic IRQ enabled : no
> periodic IRQ frequency : 1024
> max user IRQ frequency : 64
> 24hr : yes
> periodic_IRQ : no
> update_IRQ : no
> HPET_emulated : yes
> BCD : yes
> DST_enable : no
> periodic_freq : 1024
> batt_status : okay
>
>
> I added some debugging code to the kernel, saw this on the next boot:
>
> __rtc_read_alarm: A - alarm->time.tm_year = -1, missing = 0
> __rtc_read_alarm: B - alarm->time.tm_year = 116, missing = 3
> __rtc_read_alarm: C - alarm->time.tm_year = 117
>
>
> Corresponding to these parts of __rtc_read_alarm:
>
> int __rtc_read_alarm(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_wkalrm *alarm)
> ...
> enum { none, day, month, year } missing = none;
> ...
> err = rtc_read_alarm_internal(rtc, alarm);
> ...
> /* Fill in the missing alarm fields using the timestamp; we
> * know there's at least one since alarm->time is invalid.
> */
> ...
> [A]
> if (alarm->time.tm_year == -1) {
> alarm->time.tm_year = now.tm_year;
> if (missing == none)
> missing = year;
> }
> [B]
> ...
> switch (missing) {
> ...
> /* Year rollover ... easy except for leap years! */
> case year:
> dev_dbg(&rtc->dev, "alarm rollover: %s\n", "year");
> do {
> alarm->time.tm_year++;
> } while (!is_leap_year(alarm->time.tm_year + 1900)
> && rtc_valid_tm(&alarm->time) != 0);
> [C] break;
>
>
> I noticed that the missing year and month cases increment their
> respective time units inside a do ... while (condition) loop, pushing
> the default 'filled-in' values to now + 1.
>
> Should this 'roll-over' code check for a valid date before incrementing
> the alarm time? (See attached patch.) I think this might also apply to
> a missing month field as well.
>
> (After the patch + reboot):
>
> % cat /proc/driver/rtc
> rtc_time : 18:24:02
> rtc_date : 2016-06-09
> alrm_time : 14:04:37
> alrm_date : 2016-06-09
> alarm_IRQ : no
> alrm_pending : no
> update IRQ enabled : no
> periodic IRQ enabled : no
> periodic IRQ frequency : 1024
> max user IRQ frequency : 64
> 24hr : yes
> periodic_IRQ : no
> update_IRQ : no
> HPET_emulated : yes
> BCD : yes
> DST_enable : no
> periodic_freq : 1024
> batt_status : okay
>
> -- >8 --
>
> From d6feacf20b312c8ebfee902b8b84f68c1a82f035 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@stratus.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:52:28 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] rtc: check filled-in alarm values before incrementing
>
> In __rtc_read_alarm, check filled-in alarm->time.tm_year values (those
> not returned by the RTC and defaulted to now.tm_year) before
> incrementing them in the rollover handling case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@stratus.com>
> ---
> drivers/rtc/interface.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/interface.c b/drivers/rtc/interface.c
> index 9ef5f6f89f98..3098ce4167ef 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/interface.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/interface.c
> @@ -258,10 +258,10 @@ int __rtc_read_alarm(struct rtc_device *rtc,
> struct rtc_wkalrm *alarm)
> /* Year rollover ... easy except for leap years! */
> case year:
> dev_dbg(&rtc->dev, "alarm rollover: %s\n", "year");
> - do {
> + while (!is_leap_year(alarm->time.tm_year + 1900)
> + && rtc_valid_tm(&alarm->time) != 0) {
> alarm->time.tm_year++;
> - } while (!is_leap_year(alarm->time.tm_year + 1900)
> - && rtc_valid_tm(&alarm->time) != 0);
> + }
> break;
>
> default:
>
Ping? This isn't a major problem, but can setup endless RTC interrupts
under certain conditions on said hardware.
-- Joe
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@stratus.com>
To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<rtc-linux@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>
Subject: Re: __rtc_read_alarm missing month/year field bug?
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:36:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57716404.9080204@stratus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5768148E.8090304@stratus.com>
On 06/20/2016 12:06 PM, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> Hello Alessandro and Alexandre,
>
> I noticed an interesting cmos_rtc.rtc.aie_timer on a Stratus machine
> running the 4.6 kernel, with an expiration time that puts the alarm way
> out into next year. This is easily reproducible on this machine by
> setting a wakealarm sometime in the near future, then rebooting.
>
> From a fresh boot:
>
> % cat /proc/driver/rtc
> rtc_time : 17:55:10
> rtc_date : 2016-06-09
> alrm_time : 14:04:37
> alrm_date : 2017-06-09 << 2017 ?
> alarm_IRQ : no
> alrm_pending : no
> update IRQ enabled : no
> periodic IRQ enabled : no
> periodic IRQ frequency : 1024
> max user IRQ frequency : 64
> 24hr : yes
> periodic_IRQ : no
> update_IRQ : no
> HPET_emulated : yes
> BCD : yes
> DST_enable : no
> periodic_freq : 1024
> batt_status : okay
>
>
> I added some debugging code to the kernel, saw this on the next boot:
>
> __rtc_read_alarm: A - alarm->time.tm_year = -1, missing = 0
> __rtc_read_alarm: B - alarm->time.tm_year = 116, missing = 3
> __rtc_read_alarm: C - alarm->time.tm_year = 117
>
>
> Corresponding to these parts of __rtc_read_alarm:
>
> int __rtc_read_alarm(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_wkalrm *alarm)
> ...
> enum { none, day, month, year } missing = none;
> ...
> err = rtc_read_alarm_internal(rtc, alarm);
> ...
> /* Fill in the missing alarm fields using the timestamp; we
> * know there's at least one since alarm->time is invalid.
> */
> ...
> [A]
> if (alarm->time.tm_year == -1) {
> alarm->time.tm_year = now.tm_year;
> if (missing == none)
> missing = year;
> }
> [B]
> ...
> switch (missing) {
> ...
> /* Year rollover ... easy except for leap years! */
> case year:
> dev_dbg(&rtc->dev, "alarm rollover: %s\n", "year");
> do {
> alarm->time.tm_year++;
> } while (!is_leap_year(alarm->time.tm_year + 1900)
> && rtc_valid_tm(&alarm->time) != 0);
> [C] break;
>
>
> I noticed that the missing year and month cases increment their
> respective time units inside a do ... while (condition) loop, pushing
> the default 'filled-in' values to now + 1.
>
> Should this 'roll-over' code check for a valid date before incrementing
> the alarm time? (See attached patch.) I think this might also apply to
> a missing month field as well.
>
> (After the patch + reboot):
>
> % cat /proc/driver/rtc
> rtc_time : 18:24:02
> rtc_date : 2016-06-09
> alrm_time : 14:04:37
> alrm_date : 2016-06-09
> alarm_IRQ : no
> alrm_pending : no
> update IRQ enabled : no
> periodic IRQ enabled : no
> periodic IRQ frequency : 1024
> max user IRQ frequency : 64
> 24hr : yes
> periodic_IRQ : no
> update_IRQ : no
> HPET_emulated : yes
> BCD : yes
> DST_enable : no
> periodic_freq : 1024
> batt_status : okay
>
> -- >8 --
>
> From d6feacf20b312c8ebfee902b8b84f68c1a82f035 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@stratus.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:52:28 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] rtc: check filled-in alarm values before incrementing
>
> In __rtc_read_alarm, check filled-in alarm->time.tm_year values (those
> not returned by the RTC and defaulted to now.tm_year) before
> incrementing them in the rollover handling case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@stratus.com>
> ---
> drivers/rtc/interface.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/interface.c b/drivers/rtc/interface.c
> index 9ef5f6f89f98..3098ce4167ef 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/interface.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/interface.c
> @@ -258,10 +258,10 @@ int __rtc_read_alarm(struct rtc_device *rtc,
> struct rtc_wkalrm *alarm)
> /* Year rollover ... easy except for leap years! */
> case year:
> dev_dbg(&rtc->dev, "alarm rollover: %s\n", "year");
> - do {
> + while (!is_leap_year(alarm->time.tm_year + 1900)
> + && rtc_valid_tm(&alarm->time) != 0) {
> alarm->time.tm_year++;
> - } while (!is_leap_year(alarm->time.tm_year + 1900)
> - && rtc_valid_tm(&alarm->time) != 0);
> + }
> break;
>
> default:
>
Ping? This isn't a major problem, but can setup endless RTC interrupts
under certain conditions on said hardware.
-- Joe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-27 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-20 16:06 [rtc-linux] __rtc_read_alarm missing month/year field bug? Joe Lawrence
2016-06-20 16:06 ` Joe Lawrence
2016-06-27 17:36 ` Joe Lawrence [this message]
2016-06-27 17:36 ` Joe Lawrence
2016-07-19 10:49 ` [rtc-linux] " Alexandre Belloni
2016-07-19 10:49 ` Alexandre Belloni
2016-07-21 19:52 ` [rtc-linux] " Joe Lawrence
2016-07-21 19:52 ` Joe Lawrence
2016-07-19 10:46 ` [rtc-linux] " Alexandre Belloni
2016-07-19 10:46 ` Alexandre Belloni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=57716404.9080204@stratus.com \
--to=joe.lawrence@stratus.com \
--cc=a.zummo@towertech.it \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rtc-linux@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.