On 04/10/2020 03:43:23+0200, Jonathan Neuschäfer wrote:
> > > +static int ntxec_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ntxec_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > + int res = 0;
> > > +
> > > + res = regmap_write(rtc->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_WRITE_YEAR, ntxec_reg8(tm->tm_year - 100));
> > > + if (res)
> > > + return res;
> > > +
> > > + res = regmap_write(rtc->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_WRITE_MONTH, ntxec_reg8(tm->tm_mon + 1));
> > > + if (res)
> > > + return res;
> > > +
> > > + res = regmap_write(rtc->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_WRITE_DAY, ntxec_reg8(tm->tm_mday));
> > > + if (res)
> > > + return res;
> > > +
> > > + res = regmap_write(rtc->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_WRITE_HOUR, ntxec_reg8(tm->tm_hour));
> > > + if (res)
> > > + return res;
> > > +
> > > + res = regmap_write(rtc->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_WRITE_MINUTE, ntxec_reg8(tm->tm_min));
> > > + if (res)
> > > + return res;
> > > +
> > > + return regmap_write(rtc->ec->regmap, NTXEC_REG_WRITE_SECOND, ntxec_reg8(tm->tm_sec));
> >
> > I wonder: Is this racy? If you write minute, does the seconds reset to
> > zero or something like that? Or can it happen, that after writing the
> > minute register and before writing the second register the seconds
> > overflow and you end up with the time set to a minute later than
> > intended? If so it might be worth to set the seconds to 0 at the start
> > of the function (with an explaining comment).
>
> The setting the minutes does not reset the seconds, so I think this race
> condition is possible. I'll add the workaround.
>
Are you sure this happens? Usually, the seconds are not reset but the
internal 32768kHz counter is so you have a full second to write all the
registers.
> > .read_time has a similar race. What happens if minutes overflow between
> > reading NTXEC_REG_READ_DH and NTXEC_REG_READ_MS?
>
> Yes, we get read tearing in that case. It could even propagate all the
> way to the year/month field, for example when the following time rolls
> over:
> A | B | C
> 2020-10-31 23:59:59
> 2020-11-01 00:00:00
>
> - If the increment happens after reading C, we get 2020-10-31 23:59:59
> - If the increment happens between reading B and C, we get 2020-10-31 23:00:00
> - If the increment happens between reading A and B, we get 2020-10-01 00:00:00
> - If the increment happens before reading A, we get 2020-11-01 00:00:00
>
> ... both of which are far from correct.
>
> To mitigate this issue, I think something like the following is needed:
>
> - Read year/month
> - Read day/hour
> - Read minute/second
> - Read day/hour, compare with previously read value, restart on mismatch
> - Read year/month, compare with previously read value, restart on mismatch
>
> The order of the last two steps doesn't matter, as far as I can see, but
> if I remove one of them, I can't catch all cases of read tearing.
>
Are you also sure this happens?
Only one comparison is necessary, the correct order would be:
- Read minute/second
- Read day/hour
- Read year/month
- Read minute/second, compare
If day/hour changes but not minute/second, it would mean that it took at
least an hour to read all the registers. At this point, I think you have
other problems and the exact time doesn't matter anymore.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
