linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid double addition/removal of sysfs links

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]

Message-ID: <20150722070448.GC30970@linux>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:34:48 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid double addition/removal of sysfs links

On 21-07-15, 03:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> That said, cpu_present_mask may only be updated after calling
> arch_unregister_cpu(), so checking it in cpufreq_remove_dev() doesn't
> really help.

No, it is indeed useful. This is a snippet from the latest code we
have:

		cpumask_copy(&mask, policy->related_cpus);
		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &mask);

		/*
		 * Free policy only if all policy->related_cpus are removed
		 * physically.
		 */
		if (cpumask_intersects(&mask, cpu_present_mask)) {
			remove_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, cpu);
			return 0;
		}

		cpufreq_policy_free(policy, true);



So what we are checking in the 'if' block is: "Is any CPU from
related_cpus, apart from the one getting removed now, present in the
system."

If not, then free the policy.

> It looks like using cpufreq_remove_dev() as the subsys ->remove_dev
> callback is a mistake as it cannot really tell the difference between
> that code path and the CPU offline one.

What do you mean by this? Doesn't the sif parameter confirms that its
called from subsys path ?

-- 
viresh
--
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/