The atomicity violation occurs when the variables cur_delay and new_delay are defined. Imagine a scenario where, while defining cur_delay and new_delay, the values stored in devfreq->profile->polling_ms and the delay variable change. After acquiring the mutex_lock and entering the critical section, due to possible concurrent modifications, cur_delay and new_delay may no longer represent the correct values. Subsequent usage, such as if (cur_delay > new_delay), could cause the program to run incorrectly, resulting in inconsistencies.
To address this issue, it is recommended to acquire a lock in advance, ensuring that devfreq->profile->polling_ms and delay are protected by the lock when being read. This will help ensure the consistency of the program.
This possible bug is found by an experimental static analysis tool developed by our team. This tool analyzes the locking APIs to extract function pairs that can be concurrently executed, and then analyzes the instructions in the paired functions to identify possible concurrency bugs including data races and atomicity violations.
Fixes: 7e6fdd4bad03 ("PM / devfreq: Core updates to support devices which can idle") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Qiu-ji Chen chenqiuji666@gmail.com --- drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c index 98657d3b9435..9634739fc9cb 100644 --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c @@ -616,10 +616,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(devfreq_monitor_resume); */ void devfreq_update_interval(struct devfreq *devfreq, unsigned int *delay) { + mutex_lock(&devfreq->lock); unsigned int cur_delay = devfreq->profile->polling_ms; unsigned int new_delay = *delay;
- mutex_lock(&devfreq->lock); devfreq->profile->polling_ms = new_delay;
if (IS_SUPPORTED_FLAG(devfreq->governor->flags, IRQ_DRIVEN))