linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: fix race on cpufreq online

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: <20220524112917.apcvvvblksg7jdu4@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 24 May 2022 16:59:17 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Schspa Shi <schspa@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: fix race on cpufreq online

On 24-05-22, 13:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:15 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 13-05-22, 09:57, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 12-05-22, 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > Moreover, I'm not sure why the locking dance in store() is necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > commit fdd320da84c6 ("cpufreq: Lock CPU online/offline in cpufreq_register_driver()")
> > > >
> > > > I get that, but I'm wondering if locking CPU hotplug from store() is
> > > > needed at all.  I mean, if we are in store(), we are holding an active
> > > > reference to the policy kobject, so the policy cannot go away until we
> > > > are done anyway.  Thus it should be sufficient to use the policy rwsem
> > > > for synchronization.
> > >
> > > I think after the current patchset is applied and we have the inactive
> > > policy check in store(), we won't required the dance after all.
> >
> > I was writing a patch for this and then thought maybe look at mails
> > around this time, when you sent the patch, and found the reason why we
> > need the locking dance :)
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150729091136.GN7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk/

Actually no, this is for the lock in cpufreq_driver_register().

> Well, again, if we are in store(), we are holding a reference to the
> policy kobject, so this is not initialization time.

This is the commit which made the change.

commit 4f750c930822 ("cpufreq: Synchronize the cpufreq store_*() routines with CPU hotplug")

-- 
viresh