From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com>,
Phil Elwell <phil@raspberrypi.com>,
Tim Gover <tim.gover@raspberrypi.com>,
Dom Cobley <dom@raspberrypi.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
Subject: [PATCH v5 02/11] clk: Enforce that disjoints limits are invalid
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:18:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220222131853.198625-3-maxime@cerno.tech> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220222131853.198625-1-maxime@cerno.tech>
If we were to have two users of the same clock, doing something like:
clk_set_rate_range(user1, 1000, 2000);
clk_set_rate_range(user2, 3000, 4000);
The second call would fail with -EINVAL, preventing from getting in a
situation where we end up with impossible limits.
However, this is never explicitly checked against and enforced, and
works by relying on an undocumented behaviour of clk_set_rate().
Indeed, on the first clk_set_rate_range will make sure the current clock
rate is within the new range, so it will be between 1000 and 2000Hz. On
the second clk_set_rate_range(), it will consider (rightfully), that our
current clock is outside of the 3000-4000Hz range, and will call
clk_core_set_rate_nolock() to set it to 3000Hz.
clk_core_set_rate_nolock() will then call clk_calc_new_rates() that will
eventually check that our rate 3000Hz rate is outside the min 3000Hz max
2000Hz range, will bail out, the error will propagate and we'll
eventually return -EINVAL.
This solely relies on the fact that clk_calc_new_rates(), and in
particular clk_core_determine_round_nolock(), won't modify the new rate
allowing the error to be reported. That assumption won't be true for all
drivers, and most importantly we'll break that assumption in a later
patch.
It can also be argued that we shouldn't even reach the point where we're
calling clk_core_set_rate_nolock().
Let's make an explicit check for disjoints range before we're doing
anything.
Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
---
drivers/clk/clk.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
index 8de6a22498e7..276188a6bc2a 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
@@ -632,6 +632,24 @@ static void clk_core_get_boundaries(struct clk_core *core,
*max_rate = min(*max_rate, clk_user->max_rate);
}
+static bool clk_core_check_boundaries(struct clk_core *core,
+ unsigned long min_rate,
+ unsigned long max_rate)
+{
+ struct clk *user;
+
+ lockdep_assert_held(&prepare_lock);
+
+ if (min_rate > core->max_rate || max_rate < core->min_rate)
+ return false;
+
+ hlist_for_each_entry(user, &core->clks, clks_node)
+ if (min_rate > user->max_rate || max_rate < user->min_rate)
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
void clk_hw_set_rate_range(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long min_rate,
unsigned long max_rate)
{
@@ -2348,6 +2366,11 @@ int clk_set_rate_range(struct clk *clk, unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
clk->min_rate = min;
clk->max_rate = max;
+ if (!clk_core_check_boundaries(clk->core, min, max)) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
rate = clk_core_get_rate_nolock(clk->core);
if (rate < min || rate > max) {
/*
@@ -2376,6 +2399,7 @@ int clk_set_rate_range(struct clk *clk, unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
}
}
+out:
if (clk->exclusive_count)
clk_core_rate_protect(clk->core);
--
2.35.1
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Dom Cobley <dom@raspberrypi.com>,
Tim Gover <tim.gover@raspberrypi.com>,
Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>,
Phil Elwell <phil@raspberrypi.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 02/11] clk: Enforce that disjoints limits are invalid
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:18:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220222131853.198625-3-maxime@cerno.tech> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220222131853.198625-1-maxime@cerno.tech>
If we were to have two users of the same clock, doing something like:
clk_set_rate_range(user1, 1000, 2000);
clk_set_rate_range(user2, 3000, 4000);
The second call would fail with -EINVAL, preventing from getting in a
situation where we end up with impossible limits.
However, this is never explicitly checked against and enforced, and
works by relying on an undocumented behaviour of clk_set_rate().
Indeed, on the first clk_set_rate_range will make sure the current clock
rate is within the new range, so it will be between 1000 and 2000Hz. On
the second clk_set_rate_range(), it will consider (rightfully), that our
current clock is outside of the 3000-4000Hz range, and will call
clk_core_set_rate_nolock() to set it to 3000Hz.
clk_core_set_rate_nolock() will then call clk_calc_new_rates() that will
eventually check that our rate 3000Hz rate is outside the min 3000Hz max
2000Hz range, will bail out, the error will propagate and we'll
eventually return -EINVAL.
This solely relies on the fact that clk_calc_new_rates(), and in
particular clk_core_determine_round_nolock(), won't modify the new rate
allowing the error to be reported. That assumption won't be true for all
drivers, and most importantly we'll break that assumption in a later
patch.
It can also be argued that we shouldn't even reach the point where we're
calling clk_core_set_rate_nolock().
Let's make an explicit check for disjoints range before we're doing
anything.
Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
---
drivers/clk/clk.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
index 8de6a22498e7..276188a6bc2a 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
@@ -632,6 +632,24 @@ static void clk_core_get_boundaries(struct clk_core *core,
*max_rate = min(*max_rate, clk_user->max_rate);
}
+static bool clk_core_check_boundaries(struct clk_core *core,
+ unsigned long min_rate,
+ unsigned long max_rate)
+{
+ struct clk *user;
+
+ lockdep_assert_held(&prepare_lock);
+
+ if (min_rate > core->max_rate || max_rate < core->min_rate)
+ return false;
+
+ hlist_for_each_entry(user, &core->clks, clks_node)
+ if (min_rate > user->max_rate || max_rate < user->min_rate)
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
void clk_hw_set_rate_range(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long min_rate,
unsigned long max_rate)
{
@@ -2348,6 +2366,11 @@ int clk_set_rate_range(struct clk *clk, unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
clk->min_rate = min;
clk->max_rate = max;
+ if (!clk_core_check_boundaries(clk->core, min, max)) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
rate = clk_core_get_rate_nolock(clk->core);
if (rate < min || rate > max) {
/*
@@ -2376,6 +2399,7 @@ int clk_set_rate_range(struct clk *clk, unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
}
}
+out:
if (clk->exclusive_count)
clk_core_rate_protect(clk->core);
--
2.35.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-22 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-22 13:18 [PATCH v5 00/11] clk: Improve clock range handling Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 01/11] clk: Introduce Kunit Tests for the framework Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-23 2:25 ` kernel test robot
2022-02-23 2:25 ` kernel test robot
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard [this message]
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 02/11] clk: Enforce that disjoints limits are invalid Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 03/11] clk: Always clamp the rounded rate Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 04/11] clk: Use clamp instead of open-coding our own Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 05/11] clk: Always set the rate on clk_set_range_rate Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 06/11] clk: Add clk_drop_range Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 07/11] clk: bcm: rpi: Add variant structure Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 08/11] clk: bcm: rpi: Set a default minimum rate Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 09/11] clk: bcm: rpi: Run some clocks at the minimum rate allowed Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 10/11] drm/vc4: Add logging and comments Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` [PATCH v5 11/11] drm/vc4: hdmi: Remove clock rate initialization Maxime Ripard
2022-02-22 13:18 ` Maxime Ripard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220222131853.198625-3-maxime@cerno.tech \
--to=maxime@cerno.tech \
--cc=dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com \
--cc=dom@raspberrypi.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=phil@raspberrypi.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=tim.gover@raspberrypi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.