From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:44:01 +0000 (+0800)
Subject: cpufreq: Initialize governor for a new policy under policy->rwsem
X-Git-Tag: firefly_0821_release~176^2~4315^2^2
X-Git-Url: http://demsky.eecs.uci.edu/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=4e97b631f24c927b2302368f4f83efbba82076ee;p=firefly-linux-kernel-4.4.55.git

cpufreq: Initialize governor for a new policy under policy->rwsem

policy->rwsem is used to lock access to all parts of code modifying
struct cpufreq_policy, but it's not used on a new policy created by
__cpufreq_add_dev().

Because of that, if cpufreq_update_policy() is called in a tight loop
on one CPU in parallel with offline/online of another CPU, then the
following crash can be triggered:

Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000020
pgd = c0003000
[00000020] *pgd=80000000004003, *pmd=00000000
Internal error: Oops: 206 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM

PC is at __cpufreq_governor+0x10/0x1ac
LR is at cpufreq_update_policy+0x114/0x150

---[ end trace f23a8defea6cd706 ]---
Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
CPU0: stopping
CPU: 0 PID: 7136 Comm: mpdecision Tainted: G      D W    3.10.0-gd727407-00074-g979ede8 #396

[<c0afe180>] (notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x68) from [<c02a23ac>] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x58)
[<c02a23ac>] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x58) from [<c02a23d8>] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x14/0x1c)
[<c02a23d8>] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x14/0x1c) from [<c0803c68>] (cpufreq_set_policy+0xd4/0x2b8)
[<c0803c68>] (cpufreq_set_policy+0xd4/0x2b8) from [<c0803e7c>] (cpufreq_init_policy+0x30/0x98)
[<c0803e7c>] (cpufreq_init_policy+0x30/0x98) from [<c0805a18>] (__cpufreq_add_dev.isra.17+0x4dc/0x7a4)
[<c0805a18>] (__cpufreq_add_dev.isra.17+0x4dc/0x7a4) from [<c0805d38>] (cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x58/0x84)
[<c0805d38>] (cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x58/0x84) from [<c0afe180>] (notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x68)
[<c0afe180>] (notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x68) from [<c02812dc>] (__cpu_notify+0x28/0x44)
[<c02812dc>] (__cpu_notify+0x28/0x44) from [<c0aeed90>] (_cpu_up+0xf4/0x1dc)
[<c0aeed90>] (_cpu_up+0xf4/0x1dc) from [<c0aeeed4>] (cpu_up+0x5c/0x78)
[<c0aeeed4>] (cpu_up+0x5c/0x78) from [<c0aec808>] (store_online+0x44/0x74)
[<c0aec808>] (store_online+0x44/0x74) from [<c03a40f4>] (sysfs_write_file+0x108/0x14c)
[<c03a40f4>] (sysfs_write_file+0x108/0x14c) from [<c03517d4>] (vfs_write+0xd0/0x180)
[<c03517d4>] (vfs_write+0xd0/0x180) from [<c0351ca8>] (SyS_write+0x38/0x68)
[<c0351ca8>] (SyS_write+0x38/0x68) from [<c0205de0>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x30)

Fix that by taking locks at appropriate places in __cpufreq_add_dev()
as well.

Reported-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Suggested-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[rjw: Changelog]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index d6622689d000..cf485d928903 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif,
 		policy->user_policy.max = policy->max;
 	}
 
+	down_write(&policy->rwsem);
 	write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
 	for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus)
 		per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy;
@@ -1206,6 +1207,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif,
 		policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
 		policy->user_policy.governor = policy->governor;
 	}
+	up_write(&policy->rwsem);
 
 	kobject_uevent(&policy->kobj, KOBJ_ADD);
 	up_read(&cpufreq_rwsem);