linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arch_topology: validate input frequencies to arch_set_freq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200825055618.ybght3enlpuwo3va@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:26:18 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, sudeep.holla@....com, will@...nel.org,
        valentin.schneider@....com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arch_topology: validate input frequencies to
 arch_set_freq_scale()

On 24-08-20, 22:02, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> The current frequency passed to arch_set_freq_scale() could end up
> being 0, signaling an error in setting a new frequency. Also, if the
> maximum frequency in 0, this will result in a division by 0 error.
> 
> Therefore, validate these input values before using them for the
> setting of the frequency scale factor.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> ---
>  drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index 75f72d684294..1aca82fcceb8 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ void arch_set_freq_scale(struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long cur_freq,
>  	unsigned long scale;
>  	int i;
>  
> +	if (!cur_freq || !max_freq)

We should probably use unlikely() here.

Rafael: Shouldn't this have a WARN_ON_ONCE() as well ?

> +		return;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * If the use of counters for FIE is enabled, just return as we don't
>  	 * want to update the scale factor with information from CPUFREQ.
> -- 
> 2.17.1

-- 
viresh