Commit da96aea0 authored by Vaibhav Jain's avatar Vaibhav Jain Committed by Alexandre Belloni

rtc: interface: Validate alarm-time before handling rollover

In function __rtc_read_alarm() its possible for an alarm time-stamp to
be invalid even after replacing missing components with current
time-stamp. The condition 'alarm->time.tm_year < 70' will trigger this
case and will cause the call to 'rtc_tm_to_time64(&alarm->time)'
return a negative value for variable t_alm.

While handling alarm rollover this negative t_alm (assumed to seconds
offset from '1970-01-01 00:00:00') is converted back to rtc_time via
rtc_time64_to_tm() which results in this error log with seemingly
garbage values:

"rtc rtc0: invalid alarm value: -2-1--1041528741
2005511117:71582844:32"

This error was generated when the rtc driver (rtc-opal in this case)
returned an alarm time-stamp of '00-00-00 00:00:00' to indicate that
the alarm is disabled. Though I have submitted a separate fix for the
rtc-opal driver, this issue may potentially impact other
existing/future rtc drivers.

To fix this issue the patch validates the alarm time-stamp just after
filling up the missing datetime components and if rtc_valid_tm() still
reports it to be invalid then bails out of the function without
handling the rollover.
Reported-by: default avatarSteve Best <sbest@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarVaibhav Jain <vaibhav@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAlexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>
parent 6dc1cf6f
...@@ -227,6 +227,13 @@ int __rtc_read_alarm(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_wkalrm *alarm) ...@@ -227,6 +227,13 @@ int __rtc_read_alarm(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_wkalrm *alarm)
missing = year; missing = year;
} }
/* Can't proceed if alarm is still invalid after replacing
* missing fields.
*/
err = rtc_valid_tm(&alarm->time);
if (err)
goto done;
/* with luck, no rollover is needed */ /* with luck, no rollover is needed */
t_now = rtc_tm_to_time64(&now); t_now = rtc_tm_to_time64(&now);
t_alm = rtc_tm_to_time64(&alarm->time); t_alm = rtc_tm_to_time64(&alarm->time);
...@@ -278,9 +285,9 @@ int __rtc_read_alarm(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_wkalrm *alarm) ...@@ -278,9 +285,9 @@ int __rtc_read_alarm(struct rtc_device *rtc, struct rtc_wkalrm *alarm)
dev_warn(&rtc->dev, "alarm rollover not handled\n"); dev_warn(&rtc->dev, "alarm rollover not handled\n");
} }
done:
err = rtc_valid_tm(&alarm->time); err = rtc_valid_tm(&alarm->time);
done:
if (err) { if (err) {
dev_warn(&rtc->dev, "invalid alarm value: %d-%d-%d %d:%d:%d\n", dev_warn(&rtc->dev, "invalid alarm value: %d-%d-%d %d:%d:%d\n",
alarm->time.tm_year + 1900, alarm->time.tm_mon + 1, alarm->time.tm_year + 1900, alarm->time.tm_mon + 1,
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment