On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 17-11-16, 16:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>>
>> There are two places in the cpufreq core in which low-level driver
>> callbacks may be invoked for an inactive cpufreq policy, which isn't
>> guaranteed to work in general. Both are due to possible races with
>> CPU offline.
>>
>> First, in cpufreq_get(), the policy may become inactive after
>> the check against policy->cpus in cpufreq_cpu_get() and before
>> policy->rwsem is acquired, in which case using the policy going
>> forward may not be correct.
>>
>> Second, an analogous situation is possible in cpufreq_update_policy().
>>
>> Avoid using inactive policies by adding policy_is_inactive() checks
>> to the code in the above places.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1526,7 +1526,10 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cp
>>
>> if (policy) {
>> down_read(&policy->rwsem);
>> - ret_freq = __cpufreq_get(policy);
>> +
>> + if (!policy_is_inactive(policy))
>> + ret_freq = __cpufreq_get(policy);
>> +
>> up_read(&policy->rwsem);
>>
>> cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>> @@ -2265,6 +2268,9 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int c
>>
>> down_write(&policy->rwsem);
>>
>> + if (policy_is_inactive(policy))
>
> You also need to set some value to 'ret' as it is uninitialized right now.
Right, thanks!
