linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] thermal: cpufreq_cooling: Use a copy of local ops for each cooling device

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: <20220613091611.ncd2hziu4nbyip4x@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 14:46:11 +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 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.

-- 
viresh