Re: FW: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/1] EmbeddedPkg: Fixed Asserts in SCT Runtime Services test.

["Ard Biesheuvel" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 07:25, Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ard
>
> I have also checked UEFI Shell Specification Version 2.2(https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Shell_2_2.pdf)
> For date command the range of valid years is from 1998–2099 (on page 121)
>
> So Range of valid years is conflicting in UEFI Spec and UEFI Shell Spec.
> I think UEFI spec needs to be corrected. What are your thoughts?
>

Page 121 does not mention data. Page 111 does, and tells me that a
two-digit year is interpreted as 199x or 20xx, and a four digit year
is interpreted as is.

How exactly does that conflict with the UEFI spec?


>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 7:50 PM
> > To: Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@nxp.com>
> > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>; Pankaj Bansal
> > <pankaj.bansal@nxp.com>
> > Subject: Re: FW: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/1] EmbeddedPkg: Fixed Asserts in SCT
> > Runtime Services test.
> >
> > Caution: EXT Email
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 11:37, Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@nxp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ard
> > >
> > > I am waiting for your response.
> > >
> >
> > You said
> >
> > > Either UEFI spec need to be modified as per the test or SCT Test needs fix as
> > per UEFI Specification.
> > >
> >
> > so you answered your own question, no?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gaurav Jain
> > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 1:58 PM
> > > To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>; Pankaj
> > > Bansal <pankaj.bansal@nxp.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/1] EmbeddedPkg: Fixed Asserts in SCT
> > Runtime Services test.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 2:52 PM
> > > > To: Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@nxp.com>
> > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>; Pankaj
> > > > Bansal <pankaj.bansal@nxp.com>
> > > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/1] EmbeddedPkg: Fixed Asserts in SCT
> > > > Runtime Services test.
> > > >
> > > > Caution: EXT Email
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 06:08, Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ASSERT in SetTime_Conf and SetWakeupTime_Conf Consistency Test.
> > > > > SCT Test expect return as Invalid Parameter.
> > > > > So removed ASSERT().
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is not all this patch does.
> > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@nxp.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  EmbeddedPkg/RealTimeClockRuntimeDxe/RealTimeClock.c | 12
> > > > > ++++++------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/EmbeddedPkg/RealTimeClockRuntimeDxe/RealTimeClock.c
> > > > > b/EmbeddedPkg/RealTimeClockRuntimeDxe/RealTimeClock.c
> > > > > index 08fb9b0100b6..9bfb7756f0cb 100644
> > > > > --- a/EmbeddedPkg/RealTimeClockRuntimeDxe/RealTimeClock.c
> > > > > +++ b/EmbeddedPkg/RealTimeClockRuntimeDxe/RealTimeClock.c
> > > > > @@ -85,10 +85,6 @@ IsDayValid (
> > > > >    IN  EFI_TIME  *Time
> > > > >    )
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -  ASSERT (Time->Day >= 1);
> > > > > -  ASSERT (Time->Day <= mDayOfMonth[Time->Month - 1]);
> > > > > -  ASSERT (Time->Month != 2 || IsLeapYear (Time) || Time->Day <=
> > > > > 28);
> > > > > -
> > > > >    if (Time->Day < 1 ||
> > > > >        Time->Day > mDayOfMonth[Time->Month - 1] ||
> > > > >        (Time->Month == 2 && !IsLeapYear (Time) && Time->Day > 28))
> > > > > { @@ -105,14 +101,15 @@ IsTimeValid(
> > > > >    )
> > > > >  {
> > > > >    // Check the input parameters are within the range specified by UEFI
> > > > > -  if (Time->Year   < 1900               ||
> > > > > -      Time->Year   > 9999               ||
> > > > > +  if (Time->Year   < 1998               ||
> > > > > +      Time->Year   > 2099               ||
> > > >
> > > > That original range is based on the UEFI spec. On what basis are you
> > > > making this change?
> > > >
> > > > If your RTC hardware cannot represent the original values, this is
> > > > not the place to fix that.
> > >
> > > As per the UEFI SCT Test, SetWakeupTime_Conf expect
> > EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER for Time.Year is 1997 and 2100.
> > > Below is the link to check the Test code
> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
> > > ub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-test%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fuefi-
> > sct%2FSctPkg%2FT
> > >
> > estCase%2FUEFI%2FEFI%2FRuntimeServices%2FTimeServices%2FBlackBoxTes
> > t%2
> > >
> > FTimeServicesBBTestConformance.c&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cgaurav.jain%40
> > nxp.
> > >
> > com%7C3c6e62107ab149b8709808d7aefd73e8%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd9
> > 9c5c301
> > >
> > 635%7C0%7C0%7C637170275901140244&amp;sdata=83GGnHy%2BZvzz5yZo
> > 8et56FQqH
> > > meYimYGB9dJxtlluKM%3D&amp;reserved=0 (Line: 847)
> > >
> > > Either UEFI spec need to be modified as per the test or SCT Test needs fix as
> > per UEFI Specification.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >        Time->Month  < 1                  ||
> > > > >        Time->Month  > 12                 ||
> > > > >        !IsDayValid (Time)                ||
> > > > >        Time->Hour   > 23                 ||
> > > > >        Time->Minute > 59                 ||
> > > > >        Time->Second > 59                 ||
> > > > > +      Time->Nanosecond > 999999999      ||
> > > > >        !IsValidTimeZone (Time->TimeZone) ||
> > > > >        !IsValidDaylight (Time->Daylight)) {
> > > > >      return FALSE;
> > > > > @@ -254,6 +251,9 @@ SetWakeupTime (
> > > > >    OUT EFI_TIME    *Time
> > > > >    )
> > > > >  {
> > > > > +  if (Time == NULL || !IsTimeValid (Time)) {
> > > > > +    return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;  }
> > > > >    return LibSetWakeupTime (Enabled, Time);  }
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.17.1
> > > > >