[patch 2.6.18-rc3] RTC class, error checks

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

The rtc_is_valid_tm() routine needs to treat some of the fields it checks
as unsigned, to prevent wrongly accepting invalid rtc_time structs; this
is the same approach used elsewhere in the RTC code for such tests.

Similarly, rtc_proc_show() is missing one invalid-day-of-month test that
rtc_is_valid_tm() makes:  there is no day zero.

Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>

Index: osk/drivers/rtc/rtc-lib.c
===================================================================
--- osk.orig/drivers/rtc/rtc-lib.c	2006-05-09 09:42:01.000000000 -0700
+++ osk/drivers/rtc/rtc-lib.c	2006-08-01 22:12:43.000000000 -0700
@@ -75,12 +75,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtc_time_to_tm);
 int rtc_valid_tm(struct rtc_time *tm)
 {
 	if (tm->tm_year < 70
-		|| tm->tm_mon >= 12
+		|| ((unsigned)tm->tm_mon) >= 12
 		|| tm->tm_mday < 1
 		|| tm->tm_mday > rtc_month_days(tm->tm_mon, tm->tm_year + 1900)
-		|| tm->tm_hour >= 24
-		|| tm->tm_min >= 60
-		|| tm->tm_sec >= 60)
+		|| ((unsigned)tm->tm_hour) >= 24
+		|| ((unsigned)tm->tm_min) >= 60
+		|| ((unsigned)tm->tm_sec) >= 60)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	return 0;
Index: osk/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c
===================================================================
--- osk.orig/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c	2006-05-09 09:42:01.000000000 -0700
+++ osk/drivers/rtc/rtc-proc.c	2006-08-01 22:15:19.000000000 -0700
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static int rtc_proc_show(struct seq_file
 			seq_printf(seq, "%02d-", alrm.time.tm_mon + 1);
 		else
 			seq_printf(seq, "**-");
-		if ((unsigned int)alrm.time.tm_mday <= 31)
+		if (alrm.time.tm_mday && (unsigned int)alrm.time.tm_mday <= 31)
 			seq_printf(seq, "%02d\n", alrm.time.tm_mday);
 		else
 			seq_printf(seq, "**\n");