Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <8fea501c-b950-17bd-c710-c923b9af6e62@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Aug 2023 15:27:21 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cppc: Add missing error pointer check
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
CC:     <rafael@kernel.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230816030549.849824-1-liaochang1@huawei.com>
 <20230816034630.a4hvsj373q6aslk3@vireshk-i7>
From:   "Liao, Chang" <liaochang1@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230816034630.a4hvsj373q6aslk3@vireshk-i7>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  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.

I hope this makes sense, thanks.

-- 
BR
Liao, Chang