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:	Thu, 31 Jul 2014 04:16:13 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
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 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?

Rafael

--
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/