On 18-11-16, 13:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > > There are two places in the cpufreq core in which low-level driver > callbacks may be invoked for an inactive cpufreq policy, which isn't > guaranteed to work in general. Both are due to possible races with > CPU offline. > > First, in cpufreq_get(), the policy may become inactive after > the check against policy->cpus in cpufreq_cpu_get() and before > policy->rwsem is acquired, in which case using it going forward may > not be correct. > > Second, an analogous situation is possible in cpufreq_update_policy(). > > Avoid using inactive policies by adding policy_is_inactive() checks > to the code in the above places. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > --- > > -> v2: > Initialize ret in cpufreq_update_policy() if the inactive policy check > doesn't pass.
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> -- viresh
