linux-kernel - [PATCH v1 1/1] cpufreq: fix the target freq not in the range of policy->min & max

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: <20210625134129.11885-1-tung-chen.shih@mediatek.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Jun 2021 21:41:30 +0800
From:   TungChen Shih <tung-chen.shih@...iatek.com>
To:     <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
CC:     <wsd_upstream@...iatek.com>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        TungChen Shih <tung-chen.shih@...iatek.com>
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/1] cpufreq: fix the target freq not in the range of policy->min & max

    In cpufreq_frequency_table_target(), this function will try to find
an index for @target_freq in freq_table, and the frequency of selected
index should be in the range [policy->min, policy->max], which means:

    policy->min <= policy->freq_table[idx].frequency <= policy->max

    Though "clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);" would
have been called to check this condition, when policy->max or min is
not exactly one of the frequency in the frequency table,
policy->freq_table[idx].frequency may still go out of the range

    For example, if our sorted freq_table is [3000, 2000, 1000], and
suppose we have:

    @target_freq = 2500
    @policy->min = 2000
    @policy->max = 2200
    @relation = CPUFREQ_RELATION_L

1. After clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max); @target_freq
becomes 2200
2. Since we use CPUFREQ_REALTION_L, final selected freq will be 3000 which
beyonds policy->max

Signed-off-by: TungChen Shih <tung-chen.shih@...iatek.com>
---
 include/linux/cpufreq.h | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index 353969c7acd3..60cb15740fdf 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -975,21 +975,40 @@ static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 						 unsigned int target_freq,
 						 unsigned int relation)
 {
+	int idx = 0;
 	if (unlikely(policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_UNSORTED))
 		return cpufreq_table_index_unsorted(policy, target_freq,
 						    relation);
 
 	switch (relation) {
 	case CPUFREQ_RELATION_L:
-		return cpufreq_table_find_index_l(policy, target_freq);
+		idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_l(policy, target_freq);
+		break;
 	case CPUFREQ_RELATION_H:
-		return cpufreq_table_find_index_h(policy, target_freq);
+		idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_h(policy, target_freq);
+		break;
 	case CPUFREQ_RELATION_C:
-		return cpufreq_table_find_index_c(policy, target_freq);
+		idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_c(policy, target_freq);
+		break;
 	default:
 		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
 		return 0;
 	}
+
+	/* target index verification */
+	if (policy->freq_table[idx].frequency > policy->max) {
+		if (policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_ASCENDING)
+			idx--;
+		else
+			idx++;
+	} else if (policy->freq_table[idx].frequency < policy->min) {
+		if (policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_ASCENDING)
+			idx++;
+		else
+			idx--;
+	}
+
+	return idx;
 }
 
 static inline int cpufreq_table_count_valid_entries(const struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
-- 
2.18.0