linux-kernel - [PATCH] cpufreq: Improve code around unlisted freq check

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <37c3f1f76c055b305d1bba2c2001ac5b1d7a9b5f.1602565964.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 13 Oct 2020 10:42:47 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Improve code around unlisted freq check

The cpufreq core checks if the frequency programmed by the bootloaders
is not listed in the freq table and programs one from the table in such
a case. This is done only if the driver has set the
CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK flag.

Currently we print two separate messages, with almost the same content,
and do this with a pr_warn() which may be a bit too much as the driver
only asked us to check this as it expected this to be the case. Lower
down the severity of the print message by switching to pr_info() instead
and print a single message only.

Reported-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 15 +++++++--------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 2ea245a6c0c0..99864afac272 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1461,14 +1461,13 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
 	 */
 	if ((cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK)
 	    && has_target()) {
+		unsigned int old_freq = policy->cur;
+
 		/* Are we running at unknown frequency ? */
-		ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_get_index(policy, policy->cur);
+		ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_get_index(policy, old_freq);
 		if (ret == -EINVAL) {
-			/* Warn user and fix it */
-			pr_warn("%s: CPU%d: Running at unlisted freq: %u KHz\n",
-				__func__, policy->cpu, policy->cur);
-			ret = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->cur - 1,
-				CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
+			ret = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, old_freq - 1,
+						      CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
 
 			/*
 			 * Reaching here after boot in a few seconds may not
@@ -1476,8 +1475,8 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
 			 * frequency for longer duration. Hence, a BUG_ON().
 			 */
 			BUG_ON(ret);
-			pr_warn("%s: CPU%d: Unlisted initial frequency changed to: %u KHz\n",
-				__func__, policy->cpu, policy->cur);
+			pr_info("%s: CPU%d: Running at unlisted initial frequency: %u KHz, changing to: %u KHz\n",
+				__func__, policy->cpu, old_freq, policy->cur);
 		}
 	}
 
-- 
2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af