Re: [PATCH 4/8] hwclock: fix RTC read logic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:17:08AM -0400, J William Piggott wrote:
> 
> Over the past decade a few commits for a corner case problem
> have left the RTC read branch in a bad place.
> 
> The problem was: when a corrupted RTC could not be read, then
> it also could not be reset, because hwclock would error out
> due to the RTC read failure.
> 
> 2.15-rc1 commit 3b96a7a Aug  9 2008
> 2.19-rc1 commit 5606df5 Dec 29 2010
> 2.23-rc1 commit ab8f402 Mar 21 2013
> 
> The first fix was to ignore a synchronization timeout only for
> the busywait branch.
> 
> Two and a half years later a commit describing the same problem
> took a little more heavy-handed approach by ignoring all
> synchronization failures and the RTC read after it, for both of
> the RTC set functions.
> 
> Because the previous fix also ignored the select() branch timeout
> it caused a bogus warning. The chosen workaround for that was to
> only print the select() timeout message in debug mode (this is
> reverted by another patch).
> 
> The problem with these fixes is that we cannot just ignore the
> synchronization timeout like that, because then the drift
> correction operations will be invalid. The original logic was
> correct; we must exit when synchronization fails.

... but will be possible to set RTC with invalid data?

> Another problem is that now there are statements between the
> timing-critical synchronize-read-timestamp trio (which were
> also in the wrong order, but that part of the problem goes
> back further in history).
> 
> The solution is to skip the RTC read block completely for the
> RTC set functions when not also using the --update-drift
> option. If we are updating the drift correction factor during
> a set function then we must synchronize and read the RTC.
> Otherwise reading the RTC is not needed. Anyone trying to set
> a corrupt RTC should not be using --update-drift, because the
> resulting drift correction factor would be invalid.

OK, I see. The issue is --update-drift.

Maybe it would be nice to be more explicit in the man page and do 
NOT recommend to use --systohc together with --update-drift.

    Karel


-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux