-
由 Viresh Kumar 提交于
We can't take a big lock around __cpufreq_governor() as this causes recursive locking for some cases. But calls to this routine must be serialized for every policy. Otherwise we can see some unpredictable events. For example, consider following scenario: __cpufreq_remove_dev() __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); policy->governor->governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); cpufreq_governor_dbs() case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP: mutex_destroy(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex) cpu_cdbs->cur_policy = NULL; <PREEMPT> store() __cpufreq_set_policy() __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS); policy->governor->governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS); case CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS: mutex_lock(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex); <-- Warning (destroyed mutex) if (policy->max < cpu_cdbs->cur_policy->cur) <- cur_policy == NULL And so store() will eventually result in a crash if cur_policy is NULL at this point. Introduce an additional variable which would guarantee serialization here. Reported-by: NStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
19c76303