linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cppc: Mark frequency invariance broken

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: <20210610113359.gb2cu3miwuo44d5b@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 17:03:59 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cppc: Mark frequency invariance broken

On 10-06-21, 13:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 9:58 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > There are few races in the frequency invariance support for CPPC driver,
> > namely the driver doesn't stop the kthread_work and irq_work on policy
> > exit during suspend/resume or CPU hotplug.
> >
> > A proper fix won't be possible for the 5.13-rc, as it requires a lot of
> > changes. Instead of reverting the patch, mark this feature BROKEN for
> > now.
> >
> > Fixes: 4c38f2df71c8 ("cpufreq: CPPC: Add support for frequency invariance")
> > Reported-by: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> 
> Well, why don't we revert 4c38f2df71c8 instead?
> 
> Is there any particular reason for retaining it?

I was just trying to reduce the diff size here, since this feature
(which broke) was controlled by a CONFIG option, it looked like a nice
way of doing it.

It was already reviewed and a diff over it should be easier to review.

I can do a full revert if that's what you want.

-- 
viresh