| Message ID | 20230913163823.7880-8-james.morse@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 5bfa0e45e9e7212b87fe1564ab45f146c7d56e5f |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ACPI/arm64: add support for virtual cpuhotplug | expand |
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 04:37:55PM +0000, James Morse wrote: > intel_epb_init() is called as a subsys_initcall() to register cpuhp > callbacks. The callbacks make use of get_cpu_device() which will return > NULL unless register_cpu() has been called. register_cpu() is called > from topology_init(), which is also a subsys_initcall(). > > This is fragile. Moving the register_cpu() to a different > subsys_initcall() leads to a NULL derefernce during boot. > > Make intel_epb_init() a late_initcall(), user-space can't provide a > policy before this point anyway. > > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> I think someone knowledgeable from x86 land needs to ack/review this.
On 9/14/23 02:37, James Morse wrote: > intel_epb_init() is called as a subsys_initcall() to register cpuhp > callbacks. The callbacks make use of get_cpu_device() which will return > NULL unless register_cpu() has been called. register_cpu() is called > from topology_init(), which is also a subsys_initcall(). > > This is fragile. Moving the register_cpu() to a different > subsys_initcall() leads to a NULL derefernce during boot. ^^^^^^^^^^ s/derefernce/dereference Reported by ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --codespell > > Make intel_epb_init() a late_initcall(), user-space can't provide a > policy before this point anyway. > > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> > --- > subsys_initcall_sync() would be an option, but moving the register_cpu() > calls into ACPI also means adding a safety net for CPUs that are online > but not described properly by firmware. This lives in subsys_initcall_sync(). > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c > index e4c3ba91321c..f18d35fe27a9 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c > @@ -237,4 +237,4 @@ static __init int intel_epb_init(void) > cpuhp_remove_state(CPUHP_AP_X86_INTEL_EPB_ONLINE); > return ret; > } > -subsys_initcall(intel_epb_init); > +late_initcall(intel_epb_init); Thanks, Gavin
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c index e4c3ba91321c..f18d35fe27a9 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c @@ -237,4 +237,4 @@ static __init int intel_epb_init(void) cpuhp_remove_state(CPUHP_AP_X86_INTEL_EPB_ONLINE); return ret; } -subsys_initcall(intel_epb_init); +late_initcall(intel_epb_init);
intel_epb_init() is called as a subsys_initcall() to register cpuhp callbacks. The callbacks make use of get_cpu_device() which will return NULL unless register_cpu() has been called. register_cpu() is called from topology_init(), which is also a subsys_initcall(). This is fragile. Moving the register_cpu() to a different subsys_initcall() leads to a NULL derefernce during boot. Make intel_epb_init() a late_initcall(), user-space can't provide a policy before this point anyway. Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> --- subsys_initcall_sync() would be an option, but moving the register_cpu() calls into ACPI also means adding a safety net for CPUs that are online but not described properly by firmware. This lives in subsys_initcall_sync(). --- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)