Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Backport v1.14-branch] posix: Fix calculation of clock base in clock_settime #16283

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 21, 2019

Conversation

backporting[bot]
Copy link

@backporting backporting bot commented May 21, 2019

Backport #16040.

Fixes: #16143

Previous version calculated rt_clock_base incorrectly by subtracting
clock_gettime from the specified time. Effectively the following
formula was used.

    rt_clock_base := new_time - clock_gettime()

This is clearly incorrect when we consider what should happen if we
call clock_settime with the result of clock_gettime. It ought to be
approximately a no-op, but instead we end up zeroing the clock.

    rt_clock_base := clock_gettime() - clock_gettime() = 0

This patch fixes clock_settime by instead using k_uptime_get to
calculate rt_clock_base, like so:

    rt_clock_base := new_time - k_uptime_get()

Trying the earlier thought experiment we get:

    rt_clock_base := clock_gettime() - k_uptime_get()

Using the definition of clock_gettime this expands to:

    rt_clock_base := (rt_clock_base + k_uptime_get()) - k_uptime_get()

The two k_uptime_get() terms cancel out, leaving:

    rt_clock_base := rt_clock_base

I.e. the no-op that we expect when calling clock_settime with
the result of clock_gettime.

Note: The bug is only observable when rt_clock_base is non-zero.
So when clock_settime is called for the first time, it will appear
to work correctly since rt_clock_base is initialized to 0.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Mihajlovic <[email protected]>
@backporting backporting bot requested a review from pfalcon as a code owner May 21, 2019 12:25
@nashif nashif merged commit 8b0f062 into v1.14-branch May 21, 2019
@nashif nashif deleted the backport-16040-to-v1.14-branch branch May 21, 2019 19:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants