[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/cpufreq: Avoid using processor_pminfo[cpu] when it is NULL
The undefined behaviour sanitiser shows that it really is NULL via the pre_initcall path. (XEN) ================================================================================ (XEN) UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in cpufreq.c:158:66 (XEN) member access within null pointer of type 'struct processor_pminfo' (XEN) ----[ Xen-4.8-unstable x86_64 debug=y Not tainted ]---- <snip> (XEN) [<ffff82d0801c4231>] cpufreq_add_cpu+0x161/0xdc0 (XEN) [<ffff82d0801c6610>] cpufreq.c#cpu_callback+0x20/0x30 (XEN) [<ffff82d0804eefad>] cpufreq.c#cpufreq_presmp_init+0x2d/0x50 (XEN) [<ffff82d0804c5942>] do_presmp_initcalls+0x22/0x30 (XEN) [<ffff82d08051852d>] __start_xen+0x378d/0x42f0 (XEN) [<ffff82d080100073>] __high_start+0x53/0x60 Fix two other occurances of the same buggy logic. The processor_pminfo[] objects are only allocated as a result of XENPF_set_processor_pminfo hypercalls, which means that this early cpu callback will always hit the early NULL check, and is therefore pointless. Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> --- CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> --- xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index f19b403..fd82ef5 100644 --- a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ int __init cpufreq_register_governor(struct cpufreq_governor *governor) int cpufreq_limit_change(unsigned int cpu) { - struct processor_performance *perf = &processor_pminfo[cpu]->perf; + struct processor_performance *perf; struct cpufreq_policy *data; struct cpufreq_policy policy; @@ -134,6 +134,8 @@ int cpufreq_limit_change(unsigned int cpu) !processor_pminfo[cpu]) return -ENODEV; + perf = &processor_pminfo[cpu]->perf; + if (perf->platform_limit >= perf->state_count) return -EINVAL; @@ -155,12 +157,15 @@ int cpufreq_add_cpu(unsigned int cpu) struct cpufreq_dom *cpufreq_dom = NULL; struct cpufreq_policy new_policy; struct cpufreq_policy *policy; - struct processor_performance *perf = &processor_pminfo[cpu]->perf; + struct processor_performance *perf; /* to protect the case when Px was not controlled by xen */ - if (!processor_pminfo[cpu] || - !(perf->init & XEN_PX_INIT) || - !cpu_online(cpu)) + if ( !processor_pminfo[cpu] || !cpu_online(cpu) ) + return -EINVAL; + + perf = &processor_pminfo[cpu]->perf; + + if ( !(perf->init & XEN_PX_INIT) ) return -EINVAL; if (!cpufreq_driver) @@ -310,12 +315,15 @@ int cpufreq_del_cpu(unsigned int cpu) struct list_head *pos; struct cpufreq_dom *cpufreq_dom = NULL; struct cpufreq_policy *policy; - struct processor_performance *perf = &processor_pminfo[cpu]->perf; + struct processor_performance *perf; /* to protect the case when Px was not controlled by xen */ - if (!processor_pminfo[cpu] || - !(perf->init & XEN_PX_INIT) || - !cpu_online(cpu)) + if ( !processor_pminfo[cpu] || !cpu_online(cpu) ) + return -EINVAL; + + perf = &processor_pminfo[cpu]->perf; + + if ( !(perf->init & XEN_PX_INIT) ) return -EINVAL; if (!per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_policy, cpu)) @@ -637,8 +645,6 @@ static struct notifier_block cpu_nfb = { static int __init cpufreq_presmp_init(void) { - void *cpu = (void *)(long)smp_processor_id(); - cpu_callback(&cpu_nfb, CPU_ONLINE, cpu); register_cpu_notifier(&cpu_nfb); return 0; } -- 2.1.4 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |