From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] cpufreq: Fix governor module removal race
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 14:16:08 +0100
Message-ID: <1684964.YkVv9kPgaH@aspire.rjw.lan>
References: <1655574.Es7zYAeW1r@aspire.rjw.lan> <2007526.uAUpsoPmOG@aspire.rjw.lan> <20171123040117.GE4084@vireshk-i7>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Return-path: <linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:48660 "EHLO
        cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751447AbdKWNQa (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 23 Nov 2017 08:16:30 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20171123040117.GE4084@vireshk-i7>
Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>

On Thursday, November 23, 2017 5:01:17 AM CET Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23-11-17, 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > 
> > It is possible to remove a cpufreq governor module after
> > cpufreq_parse_governor() has returned success in
> > store_scaling_governor() and before cpufreq_set_policy()
> > acquires a reference to it, because the governor list is
> > not protected during that period and nothing prevents the
> > governor from being unregistered then.  The pointer to the
> > governor structure coming from cpufreq_parse_governor() may
> > become stale as a result of that.
> > 
> > Prevent that from happening by acquiring an extra reference
> > to the governor module temporarily in cpufreq_parse_governor(),
> > under cpufreq_governor_mutex, and dropping it in
> > store_scaling_governor(), when cpufreq_set_policy() returns.
> > 
> > Note that the second cpufreq_parse_governor() call site is fine,
> > because it only cares about the policy member of new_policy.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |    8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > 
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -607,11 +607,13 @@ static int cpufreq_parse_governor(char *
> >  	if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> >  		if (!strncasecmp(str_governor, "performance", CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN)) {
> >  			policy->policy = CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE;
> > +			policy->governor = NULL;
> >  			return 0;
> >  		}
> >  
> >  		if (!strncasecmp(str_governor, "powersave", CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN)) {
> >  			policy->policy = CPUFREQ_POLICY_POWERSAVE;
> > +			policy->governor = NULL;
> 
> Why are the above two changes required? policy->governor should always be NULL
> for setpolicy drivers anyway.

OK, I'll drop them.

Thanks,
Rafael