linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Correct a freq check in cpufreq_set

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20150728052457.GB31364@linux>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:54:57 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"mnipxh@....com" <mnipxh@....com>,
	"yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Correct a freq check in cpufreq_set_policy

On 28-07-15, 11:34, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> From: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@...el.com>
> 
> This check was originally added by commit 9c9a43ed2734 ("[CPUFREQ]
> return error when failing to set minfreq").It attempt to return an error
> on obviously incorrect limits when we echo xxx >.../scaling_max,min_freq
> Actually we just need check if new_policy->min > new_policy->max.
> Because at least one of max/min is copied from cpufreq_get_policy().
> 
> For example, when we echo xxx > .../scaling_min_freq, new_policy is
> copied from policy in cpufreq_get_policy. new_policy->max is same with
> policy->max. new_policy->min is set to a new value.
> 
> Let me explain it in deduction method, first statment in if ():
> new_policy->min > policy->max
> policy->max == new_policy->max
> ==> new_policy->min > new_policy->max
> 
> second statment in if():
> new_policy->max < policy->min
> policy->max < policy->min
> ==>new_policy->min > new_policy->max (induction method)
> 
> So we have proved that we only need check if new_policy->min >
> new_policy->max.
> 
> After apply this patch, we can also modify ->min and ->max in same time
> if new freq range is very much different from current freq range. For
> example, if current freq range is 480000-960000, then we want to set
> this range to 1120000-2240000, we would fail in the past because
> new_policy->min > policy->max. As long as the cpufreq range is valid, we
> has no reason to reject the user. So correct the check.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 6424e05..8772346 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -2276,7 +2276,7 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  
>  	memcpy(&new_policy->cpuinfo, &policy->cpuinfo, sizeof(policy->cpuinfo));
>  
> -	if (new_policy->min > policy->max || new_policy->max < policy->min)
> +	if (new_policy->min > new_policy->max)
>  		return -EINVAL;

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

-- 
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/