Re: [PATCH] clk: vc5: Fix div-by-0 when rounding a rate of zero

[Steve Longerbeam]

On 05/31/2018 12:37 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 05/31/2018 08:52 PM, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
> > On 05/31/2018 11:35 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On 05/31/2018 08:32 PM, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
> > > > Hi Marek,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 05/31/2018 11:25 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > On 05/31/2018 08:23 PM, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
> > > > > > Just return zero for a rounded rate if requested rate is zero.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was caught by CONFIG_UBSAN:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Â 192.266748] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in
> > > > > > drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c:513:17
> > > > > > [Â 192.274050] division by zero
> > > > > > [Â 192.276976] CPU: 0 PID: 2579 Comm: vsp-unit-test-0 Tainted: G
> > > > > > BÂÂ WCÂÂÂÂÂ 4.14.17-02752-g13fb96f #1
> > > > > > [Â 192.286378] Hardware name: Renesas Salvator-X board based on
> > > > > > r8a7795 ES2.0+ (DT)
> > > > > > [Â 192.293852] Call trace:
> > > > > > [Â 192.296343] [<ffff2000080900dc>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x390
> > > > > > [Â 192.301807] [<ffff200008090480>] show_stack+0x14/0x1c
> > > > > > [Â 192.306920] [<ffff200008f66574>] dump_stack+0x134/0x1a8
> > > > > > [Â 192.312213] [<ffff2000087aaa30>] ubsan_epilogue+0x14/0x60
> > > > > > [Â 192.317677] [<ffff2000087ab4d0>]
> > > > > > __ubsan_handle_divrem_overflow+0x11c/0x170
> > > > > > [Â 192.324720] [<ffff200008852120>] vc5_fod_round_rate+0x68/0x148
> > > > > > [Â 192.330620] [<ffff20000884567c>] clk_calc_new_rates+0x238/0x3fc
> > > > > > [Â 192.336607] [<ffff2000088456e0>] clk_calc_new_rates+0x29c/0x3fc
> > > > > > [Â 192.342595] [<ffff2000088483ac>]
> > > > > > clk_core_set_rate_nolock+0x48/0x11c
> > > > > > [Â 192.349019] [<ffff2000088484b4>] clk_set_rate+0x34/0x4c
> > > > > > [Â 192.354307] [<ffff20000895e304>] rcar_du_pm_suspend+0x274/0x2f4
> > > > > > [Â 192.360297] [<ffff20000898feac>] platform_pm_suspend+0x78/0xb8
> > > > > > [Â 192.366198] [<ffff2000089a5604>] dpm_run_callback+0x584/0xa18
> > > > > > [Â 192.372010] [<ffff2000089a69e0>] __device_suspend+0x1a8/0x534
> > > > > > [Â 192.377822] [<ffff2000089adc48>] dpm_suspend+0x130/0xea0
> > > > > > [Â 192.383197] [<ffff2000089b0344>] dpm_suspend_start+0x130/0x138
> > > > > > [Â 192.389099] [<ffff20000817f584>]
> > > > > > suspend_devices_and_enter+0xf0/0x1778
> > > > > > [Â 192.395700] [<ffff200008183014>] pm_suspend+0x2408/0x245c
> > > > > > [Â 192.401162] [<ffff20000817c0a4>] state_store+0xf0/0x130
> > > > > > [Â 192.406451] [<ffff200008f6f19c>] kobj_attr_store+0x5c/0x6c
> > > > > > [Â 192.412002] [<ffff2000084f4c94>] sysfs_kf_write+0xe8/0xfc
> > > > > > [Â 192.417466] [<ffff2000084f30b0>] kernfs_fop_write+0x22c/0x2e4
> > > > > > [Â 192.423281] [<ffff2000083e46d4>] __vfs_write+0x104/0x34c
> > > > > > [Â 192.428656] [<ffff2000083e4cc4>] vfs_write+0x134/0x2d8
> > > > > > [Â 192.433857] [<ffff2000083e5150>] SyS_write+0xbc/0x12c
> > > > > > [Â 192.438967] Exception stack(0xffff8006cd1cfec0 to
> > > > > > 0xffff8006cd1d0000)
> > > > > > [Â 192.445480] fec0: 0000000000000001 000000001e303f00
> > > > > > 0000000000000004 0000ffff959a5000
> > > > > > [Â 192.453397] fee0: 0000000000000000 0000000155510004
> > > > > > 0000000000000003 000000000000006d
> > > > > > [Â 192.461314] ff00: 0000000000000040 0000000000000000
> > > > > > 0000ffffcc304800 0000000000000020
> > > > > > [Â 192.469230] ff20: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> > > > > > 0000000000000001 0000000000000008
> > > > > > [Â 192.477148] ff40: 00000000004eb3b8 0000ffff958bb840
> > > > > > 000000000000003d 0000000000000001
> > > > > > [Â 192.485065] ff60: 000000001e303f00 0000ffff959a1508
> > > > > > 0000000000000004 000000001e303f00
> > > > > > [Â 192.492982] ff80: 0000000000000004 00000000004d4c68
> > > > > > 0000000000000001 0000000000000000
> > > > > > [Â 192.500899] ffa0: 000000001e30d5c0 0000ffffcc304820
> > > > > > 0000ffff958bec64 0000ffffcc304820
> > > > > > [Â 192.508816] ffc0: 0000ffff95912898 0000000020000000
> > > > > > 0000000000000001 0000000000000040
> > > > > > [Â 192.516733] ffe0: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> > > > > > 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> > > > > > [Â 192.524650] [<ffff200008083ef0>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Steve Longerbeam <steve_longerbeam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  ÂÂ drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c | 4 ++++
> > > > > >  ÂÂ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c
> > > > > > index decffb3..113523d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-versaclock5.c
> > > > > > @@ -509,6 +509,10 @@ static long vc5_fod_round_rate(struct clk_hw
> > > > > > *hw, unsigned long rate,
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂ u32 div_int;
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂ u64 div_frc;
> > > > > >  ÂÂ +ÂÂÂ /* prevent div-by-0 */
> > > > > > +ÂÂÂ if (rate == 0)
> > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂ /* Determine integer part, which is 12 bit wide */
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂ div_int = f_in / rate;
> > > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂ /*
> > > > > Can this actually happen ?
> > > > We caught this using the Renesas 3.6.0 BSP release, when performing
> > > > a suspend of rcar-du driver. The rcar_du_pm_suspend() in 3.6.0 BSP is
> > > > modified
> > > > from mainline version, including calling clk_set_rate() on the crtc
> > > > clocks with a
> > > > rate of zero. So this is not actually reproducible (yet) in mainline.
> > > So it sets clock to 0 ?
> > Yep, see
> >
> > https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas-bsp/+/rcar-3.6.0/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c#359
> >
> >
> > >  Â Anyway, this looks sane, although maybe the
> > > whole driver could use a once-over to see if there could be more of this.
> > Actually I do see more potential divide-by-zeros due to a passed rate
> > of zero, including vc5_pfd_round_rate() and vc5_pfd_set_rate().
> >
> > I can resubmit this patch fixing all cases in clk-versaclock5.c if you
> > like (and probably remove the misleading backtrace in the commit
> > message since it is a Renesas 3.6.0 kernel backtrace not a mainline
> > backtrace).
> >
> > Or perhaps just treat this as a heads-up, I'll leave it up to you.
> It'd be nice if you resubmitted it fixing all the cases.

Ok. Please disregard this patch since there won't be a v2, the
new patch will have a different title.

Steve