From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:40:45 +0000 (+0100)
Subject: cpufreq: Avoid using inactive policies
X-Git-Url: https://git.karo-electronics.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=182e36af0663a1050c42d234a5bf36f084f8c28b;p=linux-beck.git

cpufreq: Avoid using inactive policies

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 it 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.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 6e6c1fb60fbc..ad3b319486bd 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1526,7 +1526,10 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
 
 	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 +2268,11 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
 
 	down_write(&policy->rwsem);
 
+	if (policy_is_inactive(policy)) {
+		ret = -ENODEV;
+		goto unlock;
+	}
+
 	pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", cpu);
 	memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));
 	new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;