linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: dt: Don't (ab)use dev_pm_opp_get_opp

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: <525e0552-0faf-44c0-9f74-c651a70bebb6@samsung.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:57:01 +0100
From:   Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        digetx@...il.com, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: dt: Don't (ab)use
 dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to create OPP table

Hi Viresh,

On 10.11.2020 07:00, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 09-11-20, 13:42, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> This patch landed in linux next-20201109 as commit e8f7703f8fe5
>> ("cpufreq: dt: Don't (ab)use dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to create OPP
>> table"). Sadly it causes regression on some Samsung Exynos based boards:
>>
>> 8<--- cut here ---
>> Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffff37
>> pgd = (ptrval)
>> [ffffff37] *pgd=4ffff841, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
>> Internal error: Oops: 27 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
>> Modules linked in:
>> usb 3-1: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=3
>> CPU: 3 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.10.0-rc1-00007-ge8f7703f8fe5
>> #1908
>> Hardware name: Samsung Exynos (Flattened Device Tree)
>> PC is at dev_pm_opp_put_regulators+0x8/0xf0
>> LR is at dt_cpufreq_probe+0x19c/0x3fc
> Does this fix it for you ?

Yes, thanks!

Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>

Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>

> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> index 66b3db5efb53..5aa3d4e3140d 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c
> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static int dt_cpufreq_early_init(struct device *dev, int cpu)
>                          if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>                                  dev_err(cpu_dev, "failed to set regulators: %d\n",
>                                          ret);
> -                       goto out;
> +                       goto free_cpumask;
>                  }
>          }
>   
> @@ -293,6 +293,7 @@ static int dt_cpufreq_early_init(struct device *dev, int cpu)
>                  dev_pm_opp_of_cpumask_remove_table(priv->cpus);
>          if (priv->opp_table)
>                  dev_pm_opp_put_regulators(priv->opp_table);
> +free_cpumask:
>          free_cpumask_var(priv->cpus);
>          return ret;
>   }
>
>
Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland