Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cppc: Add missing error pointer check
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Wed Aug 16 2023 - 04:18:02 EST
On 16-08-23, 15:27, Liao, Chang wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
>
> 在 2023/8/16 11:46, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> > On 16-08-23, 03:05, Liao Chang wrote:
> >> The function cppc_freq_invariance_init() may failed to create
> >> kworker_fie, make it more robust by checking the return value to prevent
> >> an invalid pointer dereference in kthread_destroy_worker(), which called
> >> from cppc_freq_invariance_exit().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > I think why it was designed this way was to make the driver work,
> > without invariance support, in the worst case instead of just failing
> > completely. The invariance thing is a good to have feature, but not
> > really necessary and so failing probing the driver for that isn't
> > worth it. We should print all error messages though.
> >
> Thanks for pointing that out. I think you are right that the kworker created
> in the cppc driver is not the only arch_freq_scale updater, the ARCH provided
> updater has more priority than the driver, so the driver should still work even
> without kworker_fie supports.
>
> If that is the case, i think the best thing to do is checking the error pointer
> and printing an error message before calling kthread_destroy() in cppc_freq_invariance_exit(),
> this is because at that point, it is really necessary to ensure the kworker_fie has
> been initialized as expected, otherwise it will raise a NULL pointer exception.
Or just set fie_disabled to true ?
> I hope this makes sense, thanks.
It does.
--
viresh