From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E4CC33C9E for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 05:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AE8207FF for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 05:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="JPsxNlkR" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725965AbgAGF3Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2020 00:29:24 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com ([209.85.215.193]:39147 "EHLO mail-pg1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725781AbgAGF3X (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2020 00:29:23 -0500 Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id b137so27935798pga.6 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 21:29:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=DYRnJmKFkVOVyvhkzjG6wHR7cwBj4cNmdmKT5d4qt48=; b=JPsxNlkRHXmb+wEpvUDCFBj1A7EnkN0QhLo5R4UrciwTBhUlcwf8eX3rW8qY9dxWJs oAqsJ2p9L1akFqwWTcCy5pDQDTut2tkB6g4CsbjYnmXqf06jkoF6cs6WqM3iNCwKvIam OWATqgWzOkPIGQ9CoHSB9RuaKWDQN1GQXfaHaQNxsrUHsHTR0+xoKtmk8NOIWCtMEcvf KgiVZ403FQpxVOXV8zX2PYsPMoDGKHhTOXvw0at8FTZBGeh8rdeUUSYu7PRsd4zZoLP3 JyZwL/uGHGWULyb/K0e0bUzmXPGpQaUMUOYDYSawrX3R5eGWV15Q2FJ0zTlA5EhQqc0G KaNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=DYRnJmKFkVOVyvhkzjG6wHR7cwBj4cNmdmKT5d4qt48=; b=uaRlvSiiM8fyLeLrXkR56UbDGvvCqnOAGOZ+agLTfOUkNLa5SiTKwK8XDrf39uyj4Y qkmBytaOj584SwEenHQKJrGkz/FhcZxkxAXDgl8KRGCtadmXz0cJlJ0HwLtxmp1YuBe+ ZfrJKnvY6Fzh+1gYyq2UyjVsCtllYjSid8HLOahHxhV9WBbtqfX2Wt4+i+gloUg2gOWd z8lAQ1gvObrKSfyTMyTnLs7Q606LX9S2T2P7T9aYdStV0jMcCFiglknYrk31KoWs9sNq iFF2m6uY+MIvA573pXWc9PHDse8Lf/JM+GjBEn+ZHrcEBFZe19rXPnI2EawQ/WrogjfW cSRw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW2pfoKWq9STYA2GeDwGVMNahOZxjDLefBZiPzk7eRRdUANn6kz 7blUzFs0kR0Q20Arm8xH9ac3gw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyIaMp0yaWxzLjhjdNyyh4j10tjUv2GlWlLB0HPrp35coQ6cktZUh8z1CCi0GdoSyfDSh7T8Q== X-Received: by 2002:a63:8041:: with SMTP id j62mr115019328pgd.41.1578374963100; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 21:29:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([122.172.26.121]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n14sm58159378pff.188.2020.01.06.21.29.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Jan 2020 21:29:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 10:59:20 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: chenqiwu Cc: kgene@kernel.org, krzk@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: s3c: avoid use after free issue in xxx_cpufreq_reboot_notifier_evt() Message-ID: <20200107052920.biwi2cdmz46antm7@vireshk-i7> References: <1577515439-14477-1-git-send-email-qiwuchen55@gmail.com> <20200106054811.uduf2qdn5ecvbwrc@vireshk-i7> <20200106065249.GA16392@cqw-OptiPlex-7050> <20200106065502.bimpddvrvmfm2f5f@vireshk-i7> <20200106083018.GA19697@cqw-OptiPlex-7050> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200106083018.GA19697@cqw-OptiPlex-7050> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52 Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 06-01-20, 16:30, chenqiwu wrote: > Hhh..I don't agree this, since the cpufreq policy of cpu0 may have > been released before such UAF issue happenning. That won't happen if you do cpufreq_cpu_get(), isn't it ? > By the way, why not get invaild cpufreq policy of another cpu but > only cpu0 here? Probably because this platform has a single cpufreq policy which covers all the CPUs and so it doesn't really matter which CPU you use to get the policy. -- viresh