| 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
| ||
|
Message-id: <5B165A7D.90004@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 18:40:13 +0900
From: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Ørjan Eide <orjan.eide@....com>,
John Einar Reitan <john.reitan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] PM / devfreq: Fix handling of min/max_freq == 0
Hi,
On 2018년 05월 31일 06:13, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 05:04:14PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2018년 05월 30일 03:57, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 03:37:47PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 2018년 05월 26일 05:30, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>>>> Commit ab8f58ad72c4 ("PM / devfreq: Set min/max_freq when adding the
>>>>> devfreq device") initializes df->min/max_freq with the min/max OPP when
>>>>> the device is added. Later commit f1d981eaecf8 ("PM / devfreq: Use the
>>>>> available min/max frequency") adds df->scaling_min/max_freq and the
>>>>> following to the frequency adjustment code:
>>>>>
>>>>> max_freq = MIN(devfreq->scaling_max_freq, devfreq->max_freq);
>>>>>
>>>>> With the current handling of min/max_freq this is incorrect:
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though df->max_freq is now initialized to a value != 0 user space
>>>>> can still set it to 0, in this case max_freq would be 0 instead of
>>>>> df->scaling_max_freq as intended. In consequence the frequency adjustment
>>>>> is not performed:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (max_freq && freq > max_freq) {
>>>>> freq = max_freq;
>>>>>
>>>>> To fix this set df->min/max freq to the min/max OPP in max/max_freq_store,
>>>>> when the user passes a value of 0. This also prevents df->max_freq from
>>>>> being set below the min OPP when df->min_freq is 0, and similar for
>>>>> min_freq. Since it is now guaranteed that df->min/max_freq can't be 0 the
>>>>> checks for this case can be removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: f1d981eaecf8 ("PM / devfreq: Use the available min/max frequency")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>>>>> index 0057ef5b0a98..67da4e7b486b 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
>>>>> @@ -283,11 +283,11 @@ int update_devfreq(struct devfreq *devfreq)
>>>>> max_freq = MIN(devfreq->scaling_max_freq, devfreq->max_freq);
>>>>> min_freq = MAX(devfreq->scaling_min_freq, devfreq->min_freq);
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (min_freq && freq < min_freq) {
>>>>> + if (freq < min_freq) {
>>>>> freq = min_freq;
>>>>> flags &= ~DEVFREQ_FLAG_LEAST_UPPER_BOUND; /* Use GLB */
>>>>> }
>>>>> - if (max_freq && freq > max_freq) {
>>>>> + if (freq > max_freq) {
>>>>> freq = max_freq;
>>>>> flags |= DEVFREQ_FLAG_LEAST_UPPER_BOUND; /* Use LUB */
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -1123,17 +1123,20 @@ static ssize_t min_freq_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
>>>>> struct devfreq *df = to_devfreq(dev);
>>>>> unsigned long value;
>>>>> int ret;
>>>>> - unsigned long max;
>>>>>
>>>>> ret = sscanf(buf, "%lu", &value);
>>>>> if (ret != 1)
>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>>
>>>>> mutex_lock(&df->lock);
>>>>> - max = df->max_freq;
>>>>> - if (value && max && value > max) {
>>>>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>> - goto unlock;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (value) {
>>>>> + if (value > df->max_freq) {
>>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>> + goto unlock;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + value = df->profile->freq_table[df->profile->max_state - 1];
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> If you want to prevent that df->min_freq is zero,
>>>> you should reinitialize 'value' as following.
>>>> Because freq_table must be in ascending order.
>>>> value = df->profile->freq_table[0];
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing this out!
>>>
>>> The devfreq device I tested with (a Mali GPU) uses descending order
>>> for some reason, and I assumed that's the usual order.
>>>
>>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/chromeos-4.4/drivers/gpu/arm/midgard/backend/gpu/mali_kbase_devfreq.c#208
>>>
>>> It seems the ordering doesn't have any impact beyond this patch. If
>>> the order isn't mandatory for drivers that set up their own freq_table
>>> we should probably support both cases to be safe.
>>
>> Prior to that 'freq_table' is optional. So, patch[1] initialize the 'freq_table'
>> by using OPP interface if 'freq_table' is NULL.
>> [1] commit 0ec09ac2cebe ("PM / devfreq: Set the freq_table of devfreq device")
>>
>> Current devfreq recommend the ascending order for 'freq_table'.
>> But, as you know, it might be not enough to support them.
>>
>> I agree that we should support the both cases (ascending or descending order).
>>
>> Maybe, it might be not proper to access the freq_table[] directly
>> because we don't know the ordering style of 'freq_table'
>> if 'freq_table' is made by devfreq user instead of devfreq core.
>
> If we can assume that it is either ascending or descending, but not
> random order than a simple check if freq_table[0] <
> freq_table[max_state - 1] would be sufficient.
Also, we should consider the order way of freq_table on available_frequency
because available_frequency have to show the frequency as the ascending order
even if freq_table uses the descending order.
>
> Otherwise we could also determine the min/max after initialization and
> save the result, though that would leave us with yet another frequency
> pair, which might be confusing, especially if we don't come up with
> good names to distinguish between them.
IMO, it might make the confusion if devfreq device has the two frequency
table.
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics
Powered by blists - more mailing lists