linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: mediatek: Fix KP and lockups on proc/sram regulators error

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: <20220921071913.p7kwsjnnuad2jgvk@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:49:13 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, andrew-sh.cheng@...iatek.com,
        rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com, nfraprado@...labora.com,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: mediatek: Fix KP and lockups on proc/sram
 regulators error

Jia, do you want to reply to this thread as the Fixes patch was added
by you ?

On 09-09-22, 11:37, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Function regulator_get_optional() returns a negative error number on
> any kind of regulator_get() failure: failing to check for that in the
> teardown path will lead to a kernel panic due to a call to function
> regulator_disable().

I don't see how this can happen. The code does check if the regulators
are enabled earlier or not.

> Besides that, the "proc" regulator does actually provide power to the
> CPU cluster(s): disabling it will produce a lockup on at least some
> SoCs, such as MT8173.

We are just dropping the count that we increased earlier, how will
that disable the regulator which was already enabled ?

> That consideration is also valid for the "sram" regulator, providing
> power to the CPU caches instead, present on some other SoCs, such as
> MT8183, MT8186 (and others).
> 
> Resolve both situations and by simply removing the entire faulty
> branches responsible for disabling the aforementioned regulators if
> enabled, keeping in mind that these are enabled (and left enabled)
> by the bootloader before booting the kernel.

This looks fishy, we just keep on increasing the ref count of the
regulator but never take it down.

-- 
viresh