linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] clk: Get runtime PM before walking tree for clk

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: <CAD=FV=X13_5Kubq3A=y8gnz==6tt2bsfc0PiFAj06HX9V7_+mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:19:51 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] clk: Get runtime PM before walking tree for clk_summary

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 10:44 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Similar to the previous commit, we should make sure that all devices are
> runtime resumed before printing the clk_summary through debugfs. Failure
> to do so would result in a deadlock if the thread is resuming a device
> to print clk state and that device is also runtime resuming in another
> thread, e.g the screen is turning on and the display driver is starting
> up.
>
> Fixes: 1bb294a7981c ("clk: Enable/Disable runtime PM for clk_summary")
> Cc: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>
> Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/clk.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Shouldn't this also squash in a revert of commit 1bb294a7981c ("clk:
Enable/Disable runtime PM for clk_summary")? As it is,
clk_summary_show_subtree() is left with an extra/unnecessary
clk_pm_runtime_get() / clk_pm_runtime_put(), right?

Other than that, this looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>