[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hCQCo3EwprC7RP5Jsn8_tMp-1fbMcPwKgujiQ8YeH0aA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:17:15 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: powernv: Check negative value returned by cpufreq_table_find_index_dl()
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 21-02-18, 10:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> To be precise, ->init() should fail as that's where the table is
>> created. The registration fails as a result then.
>>
>> But what if the bug is that ->init() doesn't fail when it should?
>>
>> I guess the core could double check the frequency table after ->init()
>> if ->target_index is not NULL.
>>
>> The overall point here is that if you get a negative index in
>> ->fast_switch(), that's way too late anyway and we should be able to
>> catch that error much earlier.
>
> I don't want to end up doing double checking as some of it is already
> done at init, but let me check on what can be done.
The driver is expected to call cpufreq_table_validate_and_show() at
->init() time and fail ->init() if that fails.
That's kind of fragile, because it depends on the driver to do the right thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists