linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to set default per-policy boost flag

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: <20250205050147.hfctwo6aw75rardc@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 10:31:47 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxarm@...wei.com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
	zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, lihuisong@...wei.com, fanghao11@...wei.com,
	gautam@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to set
 default per-policy boost flag

On 04-02-25, 22:11, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
> I noticed that Viresh is working on a similar patch [1] as part of a broader patchset
> to simplify boost handling, which should also resolve this issue.
> 
> Should we merge this patch [1] and related patches since this is causing a crash,
> or submit a separate patch to fix this?

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index d434096b7515..7c1f7f5142da 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1590,7 +1590,8 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
                policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);

        /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */
-       if (policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) {
+       if (cpufreq_driver->set_boost &&
+           policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) {
                policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled();
                ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, policy->boost_enabled);
                if (ret) {

I think the right fix for now should be something like this. My series
(which will be part of next merge window) can go in separately and
revert this change then (as we won't see this problem then).

Please send a fix with something like this if it works fine, so Rafael
can apply.

-- 
viresh