Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: fix double unlock when cpufreq online

[Viresh Kumar]

On 07-05-22, 01:00, Schspa Shi wrote:
> The patch f346e96267cd: ("cpufreq: Fix possible race in cpufreq online
> error path") expand the critical region. But policy->rwsem is not held when
> calling cpufreq_driver->online and cpufreq_driver->init calls, which lead to bad
> unlock.
> 
> And it's well to hold this lock when calling cpufreq_driver->online, which
> provide more protects without bad influence.
> 
> Fixes: f346e96267cd: ("cpufreq: Fix possible race in cpufreq online error path")
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YnKZCGaig+EXSowf@kili/
> 
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Schspa Shi <schspa@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 0d58b0f8f3af..43dfaa8124e2 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1337,12 +1337,12 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>  		down_write(&policy->rwsem);
>  		policy->cpu = cpu;
>  		policy->governor = NULL;
> -		up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>  	} else {
>  		new_policy = true;
>  		policy = cpufreq_policy_alloc(cpu);
>  		if (!policy)
>  			return -ENOMEM;
> +		down_write(&policy->rwsem);
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!new_policy && cpufreq_driver->online) {
> @@ -1382,7 +1382,6 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>  		cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
>  	}
>  
> -	down_write(&policy->rwsem);
>  	/*
>  	 * affected cpus must always be the one, which are online. We aren't
>  	 * managing offline cpus here.
> @@ -1542,9 +1541,9 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>  		cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
>  
>  	cpumask_clear(policy->cpus);
> -	up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>  
>  out_free_policy:
> +	up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>  	cpufreq_policy_free(policy);
>  	return ret;
>  }

Since this is a tricky piece of code, I suggest sending a fresh patch
to fix the original issue over the revert I have sent. I am not yet
sure both patches combined will fix it correctly.

-- 
viresh