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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 16:23:11 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, amitk@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, rafael@...nel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] thermal: cpufreq_cooling: Use a copy of local ops for each cooling device On 13-06-22, 11:37, Lukasz Luba wrote: > Hi Viresh, > > Thank you for the ACKs in the other patches and suggestion in this one. > > On 6/13/22 10:16, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 10-06-22, 11:03, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > It is very unlikely that one CPU cluster would have the EM and some other > > > won't have it (because EM registration failed or DT lacks needed entry). > > > Although, we should avoid modifying global variable with callbacks anyway. > > > Redesign this and add safety for such situation. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> > > > --- > > > drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c > > > index b8151d95a806..e33183785fac 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c > > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c > > > @@ -554,7 +554,12 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np, > > > /* max_level is an index, not a counter */ > > > cpufreq_cdev->max_level = i - 1; > > > - cooling_ops = &cpufreq_cooling_ops; > > > + cooling_ops = kmemdup(&cpufreq_cooling_ops, sizeof(*cooling_ops), > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > > I don't like the way we are duplicating the ops here. Instead of this it would > > be better to add the OPs field in the cooling device structure and fill its > > fields from here. The ops structure will be allocated with the cooling device > > itself. > > > > I think I know what you mean. Make sense. There are quite a few > different cooling types of devices which are using the API > thermal_of_cooling_device_register() with the custom 'ops'. We > probably don't want to disturb that well working drivers and ecosystem. I was just suggesting to update "struct cpufreq_cooling_device" :) This is what I was, wrongly, referring to as cooling device. I should have written the exact structure name instead, my bad. -- viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists