linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] arm64: topology: Make AMUs work with modular cpufreq drivers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210108110336.udylbu6jkjc6mr55@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:33:36 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] arm64: topology: Make AMUs work with modular
 cpufreq drivers

On 08-01-21, 09:44, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> Now that I think of it again (after spending 30 minutes trying to come
> up with a more clear solution) I realised this is not actually a
> problem :).
> 
> The only location that checks the invariance status is schedutil, but
> what a cpufreq governor does becomes irrelevant if you remove the
> cpufreq driver.

Good catch :)

> The only potential problem is if one then inmods a
> cpufreq driver that's not invariant. But I think that might be on "if"
> too many to consider. What do you think?

Yeah, there is no need to worry about this then I think.

I will resend the patches soon.

-- 
viresh