linux-kernel - Re: [patch] cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq: Fix doorbell.access

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: <119a72eb-b691-77cf-9d3a-55b67a50f410@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:13:39 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc:	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Bob Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq: Fix doorbell.access_width

On 6/23/2016 8:45 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Commit 920de6ebfab8 apparently exposed a latent bug, doorbell.access_width
> is initialized to 64, but per Lv Zheng, it should be 4, and indeed, making
> that change does bring pcc-cpufreq back to life.
>
> Suggested-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c |    2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c
> @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ static int __init pcc_cpufreq_probe(void
>   	doorbell.space_id = reg_resource->space_id;
>   	doorbell.bit_width = reg_resource->bit_width;
>   	doorbell.bit_offset = reg_resource->bit_offset;
> -	doorbell.access_width = 64;
> +	doorbell.access_width = 4;
>   	doorbell.address = reg_resource->address;
>   
>   	pr_debug("probe: doorbell: space_id is %d, bit_width is %d, "


OK, I picked this up from the LKML patchwork (will push to Linus 
tomorrow), but next time please CC patches related to ACPI to linux-acpi 
and PM patches to linux-pm (so this one should have gone to both, 
ideally).  They are much easier to handle/review then and more people 
are likely to look at them too.


Thanks,

Rafael