Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:42:07 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Fix dereference null cpufreq policy
Message-ID: <20200302081207.3kogqwxbkujqgc7z@vireshk-i7>
References: <1583133336-7832-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <ab51f6c9-a67d-0107-772a-7fe57a2319cf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ab51f6c9-a67d-0107-772a-7fe57a2319cf@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 02-03-20, 08:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/03/20 08:15, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
> > 
> > cpufreq policy which is get by cpufreq_cpu_get() can be NULL if it is failure,
> > this patch takes care of it.
> > 
> > Fixes: aaec7c03de (KVM: x86: avoid useless copy of cpufreq policy)
> > Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
> 
> My bad, I checked kobject_put but didn't check that kobj is first in
> struct cpufreq_policy.
> 
> I think we should do this in cpufreq_cpu_put or, even better, move the
> kobject struct first in struct cpufreq_policy.  Rafael, Viresh, any
> objection?
> 
> Paolo
> 
> >  		policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> > -		if (policy && policy->cpuinfo.max_freq)
> > -			max_tsc_khz = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> > +		if (policy) {
> > +			if (policy->cpuinfo.max_freq)
> > +				max_tsc_khz = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> > +			cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> > +		}

I think this change makes sense and I am not sure why should we even
try to support cpufreq_cpu_put(NULL).

-- 
viresh