linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 19/48] opp: Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong order if rate is unavailable

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: <fa54a097-7edd-89af-6233-1e71c131668c@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Dec 2020 15:14:01 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
        Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/48] opp: Fix adding OPP entries in a wrong order if
 rate is unavailable

24.12.2020 09:28, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> On 23-12-20, 23:36, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 23.12.2020 07:34, Viresh Kumar пишет:
>>> On 22-12-20, 22:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 22.12.2020 12:12, Viresh Kumar пишет:
>>>>> rate will be 0 for both the OPPs here if rate_not_available is true and so this
>>>>> change shouldn't be required.
>>>>
>>>> The rate_not_available is negated in the condition. This change is
>>>> required because both rates are 0 and then we should proceed to the
>>>> levels comparison.
>>>
>>> Won't that happen without this patch ?
>>
>> No
> 
> This is how the code looks like currently:
> 
> int _opp_compare_key(struct dev_pm_opp *opp1, struct dev_pm_opp *opp2)
> {
> 	if (opp1->rate != opp2->rate)
> 		return opp1->rate < opp2->rate ? -1 : 1;
> 	if (opp1->bandwidth && opp2->bandwidth &&
> 	    opp1->bandwidth[0].peak != opp2->bandwidth[0].peak)
> 		return opp1->bandwidth[0].peak < opp2->bandwidth[0].peak ? -1 : 1;
> 	if (opp1->level != opp2->level)
> 		return opp1->level < opp2->level ? -1 : 1;
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> Lets consider the case you are focussing on, where rate is 0 for both the OPPs,
> bandwidth isn't there and we want to run the level comparison here.
> 
> Since both the rates are 0, (opp1->rate != opp2->rate) will fail and so we will
> move to bandwidth check which will fail too. And so we will get to the level
> comparison.
> 
> What am I missing here ? I am sure there is something for sure as you won't have
> missed this..
> 

Ah, you're right. It was me who was missing something as I see now,
after taking a closer look and trying to implement yours suggestion, my
bad. I'll improve this patch in the next revision, thanks!