[PATCH] cpufreq: Fix locking issues with governors

* [PATCH] cpufreq: Fix locking issues with governors
@ 2020-06-25 10:54 Viresh Kumar
  2020-06-25 11:14 ` Quentin Perret
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2020-06-25 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rafael Wysocki, Viresh Kumar
  Cc: linux-pm, Vincent Guittot, Quentin Perret, linux-kernel

The locking around governors handling isn't adequate currently. The list
of governors should never be traversed without locking in place. Also we
must make sure the governor isn't removed while it is still referenced
by code.

Reported-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 4b1a5c0173cf..dad6b85f4c89 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -624,6 +624,24 @@ static struct cpufreq_governor *find_governor(const char *str_governor)
 	return NULL;
 }
 
+static struct cpufreq_governor *get_governor(const char *str_governor)
+{
+	struct cpufreq_governor *t;
+
+	mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
+	t = find_governor(str_governor);
+	if (!t)
+		goto unlock;
+
+	if (!try_module_get(t->owner))
+		t = NULL;
+
+unlock:
+	mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
+
+	return t;
+}
+
 static unsigned int cpufreq_parse_policy(char *str_governor)
 {
 	if (!strncasecmp(str_governor, "performance", CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN))
@@ -643,28 +661,14 @@ static struct cpufreq_governor *cpufreq_parse_governor(char *str_governor)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_governor *t;
 
-	mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
-
-	t = find_governor(str_governor);
-	if (!t) {
-		int ret;
-
-		mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
-
-		ret = request_module("cpufreq_%s", str_governor);
-		if (ret)
-			return NULL;
-
-		mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
+	t = get_governor(str_governor);
+	if (t)
+		return t;
 
-		t = find_governor(str_governor);
-	}
-	if (t && !try_module_get(t->owner))
-		t = NULL;
-
-	mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
+	if (request_module("cpufreq_%s", str_governor))
+		return NULL;
 
-	return t;
+	return get_governor(str_governor);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -818,12 +822,14 @@ static ssize_t show_scaling_available_governors(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		goto out;
 	}
 
+	mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
 	for_each_governor(t) {
 		if (i >= (ssize_t) ((PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(char))
 		    - (CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN + 2)))
-			goto out;
+			break;
 		i += scnprintf(&buf[i], CPUFREQ_NAME_PLEN, "%s ", t->name);
 	}
+	mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
 out:
 	i += sprintf(&buf[i], "\n");
 	return i;
@@ -1060,11 +1066,14 @@ static int cpufreq_init_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_governor *gov = NULL;
 	unsigned int pol = CPUFREQ_POLICY_UNKNOWN;
+	bool put_governor = false;
+	int ret;
 
 	if (has_target()) {
 		/* Update policy governor to the one used before hotplug. */
-		gov = find_governor(policy->last_governor);
+		gov = get_governor(policy->last_governor);
 		if (gov) {
+			put_governor = true;
 			pr_debug("Restoring governor %s for cpu %d\n",
 				 policy->governor->name, policy->cpu);
 		} else if (default_governor) {
@@ -1091,7 +1100,11 @@ static int cpufreq_init_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 			return -ENODATA;
 	}
 
-	return cpufreq_set_policy(policy, gov, pol);
+	ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, gov, pol);
+	if (put_governor)
+		module_put(gov->owner);
+
+	return ret;
 }
 
 static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu)
-- 
2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread