linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] cpufreq: Always enforce policy limits even without frequency table

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: <20250904053700.abdkh23zwi5x65do@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 11:07:00 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
Cc: "Rafael J . wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
	zhenglifeng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] cpufreq: Always enforce policy limits even
 without frequency table

On 04-09-25, 13:23, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
> 在 2025/9/4 12:48, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> > On 04-09-25, 11:22, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
> > >   int cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify(struct cpufreq_policy_data *policy)
> > >   {
> > > +	cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(policy);
> > So if we have a freq-table, we will call this twice now. Why make it
> > bad for the existing users ?
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, in the third patch of this series we remove
> cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify() from the table_verify path,
> so cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits() is now only called here. There
> won’t be any duplicate invocation for drivers that already have a
> frequency table.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

int cpufreq_frequency_table_verify(...)
{
	cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(...);
        ...
}

int cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify(...)
{
        cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits(...);
        cpufreq_frequency_table_verify(...);
        ...
}

For a driver with a valid freq-table, we will call
cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits() unnecessarily, isn't it ?

-- 
viresh