linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: use cpufreq_cpu_get to avoid cpufreq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKohpo=6_msNGszSQB5_s0PP5O=V44P0vrWpLSe9S+=DQcmipA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:26:53 +0800
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Aaron Plattner <aplattner@...dia.com>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: use cpufreq_cpu_get to avoid cpufreq_get race conditions

On 6 March 2014 09:23, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:42:15 PM Aaron Plattner wrote:
>> If a module calls cpufreq_get while cpufreq is initializing, it's possible for
>> it to be called after cpufreq_driver is set but before cpufreq_cpu_data is
>> written during subsys_interface_register.  This happens because cpufreq_get
>> doesn't take the cpufreq_driver_lock around its use of cpufreq_cpu_data.
>
> Is this a theoretical race, or can you actually reproduce it?  If so, on what
> system/driver?  Or are there any bug reports related to this you can point me
> to?
>
>> Fix this by using cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu) to look up the policy rather than reading
>> it out of cpufreq_cpu_data directly.  cpufreq_cpu_get takes the appropriate
>> locks to prevent this race from happening.
>>
>> Since it's possible for policy to be NULL if the caller passes in an invalid CPU
>> number or calls the function before cpufreq is initialized, delete the
>> BUG_ON(!policy) and simply return 0.  Don't try to return -ENOENT because that's
>> negative and the function returns an unsigned integer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Plattner <aplattner@...dia.com>
>
> Viresh, have you seen this?

Sorry for being late. Though I see you have already applied this one,
I will still add this for records :)

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
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/