Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Prevent problems in update_policy_cpu() iflast_cpu == new_cpu

[Viresh Kumar]

On 12 September 2013 01:43, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If update_policy_cpu() is invoked with the existing policy->cpu itself
> as the new-cpu parameter, then a lot of things can go terribly wrong.
>
> In its present form, update_policy_cpu() always assumes that the new-cpu
> is different from policy->cpu and invokes other functions to perform their
> respective updates. And those functions implement the actual update like
> this:
>
> per_cpu(..., new_cpu) = per_cpu(..., last_cpu);
> per_cpu(..., last_cpu) = NULL;
>
> Thus, when new_cpu == last_cpu, the final NULL assignment makes the per-cpu
> references vanish into thin air! (memory leak). From there, it leads to more
> problems: cpufreq_stats_create_table() now doesn't find the per-cpu reference
> and hence tries to create a new sysfs-group; but sysfs already had created
> the group earlier, so it complains that it cannot create a duplicate filename.
> In short, the repercussions of a rather innocuous invocation of
> update_policy_cpu() can turn out to be pretty nasty.
>
> Ideally update_policy_cpu() should handle this situation (new == last)
> gracefully, and not lead to such severe problems. So fix it by adding an
> appropriate check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

We don't need this patch for the reasons that I outlined in other thread.
We should never call this routine when cpu == policy->cpu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/