linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, store_scaling_governor requires policy->rwsem to be held for duration of changing governors [v2]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:07:06 -0700
From:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@...hat.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, store_scaling_governor requires policy->rwsem
 to be held for duration of changing governors [v2]

On 07/30/2014 07:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:36:00 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> On 07/30/2014 02:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:18:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07/29/2014 08:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 07:46:02 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>>
>>> [cut]
>>>
>>>>>> This patch effectively reverts commit 955ef483.
>>
>> The issue reported in this patch is valid. We are seeing that internally
>> too. I believe I reported it in another thread (within the past month).
>>
>> However, the original patch fixes a real deadlock issue (I'm too tired
>> to look it up now). We can revet the original, but it's going to bring
>> back the original issue. I just want to make sure Prarit and Raphael
>> realize this before proceeding.
>>
>> I do have plans for a proper fix for the mainline (not stable branches),
>> but plan to do that after the current set of suspend/hotplug patches go
>> through. The fix would be easier to make after that.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I'm convinced by this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose we should push it for -stable from 3.10 through 3.15.x, right?
>>>>
>>>> Rafael, I think that is a good idea.  I'm not sure what the protocol is for
>>>> adding stable@...nel.org though ...
>>>
>>> I'll take care of this, thanks!
>>>
>>
>> But you aren't going to pull the in for the next release, right?
>
> What do you mean?
>

Reverting the commit will bring back another dead lock issue. So, you 
don't want to revert it on mainline. Do I still not make sense because 
I'm not using the right terms?

-Saravana

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/