linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 08/19] cpufreq: fix warning for cpufreq_init_policy unlocked access to cpufreq_governor

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: <20160118151938.GF7159@e106622-lin>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:19:38 +0000
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, mturquette@...libre.com,
	steve.muckle@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/19] cpufreq: fix warning for cpufreq_init_policy
 unlocked access to cpufreq_governor_list

On 18/01/16 10:53, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 14-01-16, 16:35, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > But, don't we have to guarantee consinstency between multiple operations
> > on cpufreq_governor_list?
> > 
> > In cpufreq_register_governor() we have:
> > 
> >  mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
> >  
> >  governor->initialized = 0;
> >  err = -EBUSY;
> >  if (!find_governor(governor->name)) {
> >  	err = 0;
> >  	list_add(&governor->governor_list, &cpufreq_governor_list);
> >  }
> >  
> >  mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
> > 
> > IIUC, find_governor and list_add have to be atomic. Couldn't someone
> > slip in right after find_governor and add the same governor to the list?
> 
> Yeah, I was wrong that cpufreq_register_governor() doesn't need a
> lock. We already have that in place ..
> 
> But most of the other places are really useless and shows that we
> haven't implemented it well.
> 
> I would suggest that we move the lock within find_governor() and
> create another find_governor_unlocked() or __find_governor() that will
> be used only from cpufreq_register_governor(), with an outer lock.
> 
> Looks reasonable ?
> 

Yes it does. I'll look into doing that.

Thanks,

- Juri