linux-kernel - [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: Avoid calling cpufreq_verify_current_freq() from handle

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]

Date:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:05:42 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: Avoid calling cpufreq_verify_current_freq() from handle_update()

On some occasions cpufreq_verify_current_freq() schedules a work whose
callback is handle_update(), which further calls cpufreq_update_policy()
which may end up calling cpufreq_verify_current_freq() again.

On the other hand, when cpufreq_update_policy() is called from
handle_update(), the pointer to the cpufreq policy is already available
but we still call cpufreq_cpu_acquire() to get it in
cpufreq_update_policy(), which should be avoided as well.

Fix both the issues by creating another helper
reeval_frequency_limits().

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 4556a53fc764..0a73de7aae54 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1115,13 +1115,25 @@ static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cp
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static void reeval_frequency_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
+{
+	struct cpufreq_policy new_policy = *policy;
+
+	pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", policy->cpu);
+
+	new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;
+	new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;
+
+	cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
+}
+
 static void handle_update(struct work_struct *work)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_policy *policy =
 		container_of(work, struct cpufreq_policy, update);
-	unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
-	pr_debug("handle_update for cpu %u called\n", cpu);
-	cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
+
+	pr_debug("handle_update for cpu %u called\n", policy->cpu);
+	reeval_frequency_limits(policy);
 }
 
 static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu)
@@ -2378,7 +2390,6 @@ int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_acquire(cpu);
-	struct cpufreq_policy new_policy;
 
 	if (!policy)
 		return;
@@ -2391,12 +2402,7 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
 	    (cpufreq_suspended || WARN_ON(!cpufreq_verify_current_freq(policy, false))))
 		goto unlock;
 
-	pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", cpu);
-	memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));
-	new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;
-	new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;
-
-	cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
+	reeval_frequency_limits(policy);
 
 unlock:
 	cpufreq_cpu_release(policy);
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b