[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130626175722.GA20226@jshin-Toonie>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:57:22 -0500
From: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: od_set_powersave_bias: NULL pointer dereference
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 08:02:29PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26 June 2013 19:58, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:18:27PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> >> I am not sure if this is enough. What if we had ondemand as the
> >> governor initially, then we changed it to something else. Now also
> >> cur_policy contains a address and isn't zero.
I just tested this case with this patch applied, and did not have any
problems.
> >>
> >> > cpumask_or(&done, &done, policy->cpus);
> >> > +
> >> > + if (policy->governor != &cpufreq_gov_ondemand)
> >> > + continue;
> >
> > This should catch that case no ?
>
> Policy might be freed and reallocated by then. And so doing
> policy->governor is dangerous.
Are you worried that after we have passed the above if check, and
before we access ->tuner governor change might occur?
Is there something synonymous to get/put_online_cpus() for cpufreq to
prevent governor change while we update ->tuner values?
Otherwise, should just spinlock?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists