Message ID | 2709142.YWmMDScDNY@vostro.rjw.lan (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Accepted, archived |
Delegated to: | Rafael Wysocki |
Headers | show |
On 18-11-16, 13:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > There are two places in the cpufreq core in which low-level driver > callbacks may be invoked for an inactive cpufreq policy, which isn't > guaranteed to work in general. Both are due to possible races with > CPU offline. > > First, in cpufreq_get(), the policy may become inactive after > the check against policy->cpus in cpufreq_cpu_get() and before > policy->rwsem is acquired, in which case using it going forward may > not be correct. > > Second, an analogous situation is possible in cpufreq_update_policy(). > > Avoid using inactive policies by adding policy_is_inactive() checks > to the code in the above places. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > > -> v2: > Initialize ret in cpufreq_update_policy() if the inactive policy check > doesn't pass. Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1526,7 +1526,10 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cp if (policy) { down_read(&policy->rwsem); - ret_freq = __cpufreq_get(policy); + + if (!policy_is_inactive(policy)) + ret_freq = __cpufreq_get(policy); + up_read(&policy->rwsem); cpufreq_cpu_put(policy); @@ -2265,6 +2268,11 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int c down_write(&policy->rwsem); + if (policy_is_inactive(policy)) { + ret = -ENODEV; + goto unlock; + } + pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", cpu); memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy)); new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;