linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 31/39] cpufreq: Fix new policy initialization during limits updates via sysfs

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: <20180624152355.485153660@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Sun, 24 Jun 2018 23:24:18 +0800
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@...ilicon.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 31/39] cpufreq: Fix new policy initialization during limits updates via sysfs

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Tao Wang <kevin.wangtao@...ilicon.com>

commit c7d1f119c48f64bebf0fa1e326af577c6152fe30 upstream.

If the policy limits are updated via cpufreq_update_policy() and
subsequently via sysfs, the limits stored in user_policy may be
set incorrectly.

For example, if both min and max are set via sysfs to the maximum
available frequency, user_policy.min and user_policy.max will also
be the maximum.  If a policy notifier triggered by
cpufreq_update_policy() lowers both the min and the max at this
point, that change is not reflected by the user_policy limits, so
if the max is updated again via sysfs to the same lower value,
then user_policy.max will be lower than user_policy.min which
shouldn't happen.  In particular, if one of the policy CPUs is
then taken offline and back online, cpufreq_set_policy() will
fail for it due to a failing limits check.

To prevent that from happening, initialize the min and max fields
of the new_policy object to the ones stored in user_policy that
were previously set via sysfs.

Signed-off-by: Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@...ilicon.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
[ rjw: Subject & changelog ]
Cc: All applicable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -657,6 +657,8 @@ static ssize_t store_##file_name					\
 	struct cpufreq_policy new_policy;				\
 									\
 	memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));			\
+	new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;			\
+	new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;			\
 									\
 	ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &new_policy.object);			\
 	if (ret != 1)							\