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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cbe36377-6f92-4913-8cd7-087e718af368@kylinos.cn>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 14:51:37 +0800
From: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
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

在 2025/9/8 14:13, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> On 04-09-25, 13:48, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
>> I understand your point about the potential duplicate call to
>> cpufreq_verify_within_cpu_limits() for drivers with a valid freq-table.
>> However, in the third patch of this series, we removed the call to
>> cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify() from the table_verify path.
> Yeah, I missed that.
>

We are currently considering moving the check that ensures a driver 
providing a freq_table also implements target_index() into the driver 
registration path.

This way, freq_table.c no longer needs to defensively check for NULL 
pointers.

Additionally, we are thinking about merging the two related APIs into a 
single one. Do you think this is a good idea?