Commit 10c46f2e authored by Maxime Ripard's avatar Maxime Ripard Committed by Stephen Boyd

clk: Enforce that disjoints limits are invalid

If we were to have two users of the same clock, doing something like:

clk_set_rate_range(user1, 1000, 2000);
clk_set_rate_range(user2, 3000, 4000);

The second call would fail with -EINVAL, preventing from getting in a
situation where we end up with impossible limits.

However, this is never explicitly checked against and enforced, and
works by relying on an undocumented behaviour of clk_set_rate().

Indeed, on the first clk_set_rate_range will make sure the current clock
rate is within the new range, so it will be between 1000 and 2000Hz. On
the second clk_set_rate_range(), it will consider (rightfully), that our
current clock is outside of the 3000-4000Hz range, and will call
clk_core_set_rate_nolock() to set it to 3000Hz.

clk_core_set_rate_nolock() will then call clk_calc_new_rates() that will
eventually check that our rate 3000Hz rate is outside the min 3000Hz max
2000Hz range, will bail out, the error will propagate and we'll
eventually return -EINVAL.

This solely relies on the fact that clk_calc_new_rates(), and in
particular clk_core_determine_round_nolock(), won't modify the new rate
allowing the error to be reported. That assumption won't be true for all
drivers, and most importantly we'll break that assumption in a later
patch.

It can also be argued that we shouldn't even reach the point where we're
calling clk_core_set_rate_nolock().

Let's make an explicit check for disjoints range before we're doing
anything.
Signed-off-by: default avatarMaxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220225143534.405820-4-maxime@cerno.techSigned-off-by: default avatarStephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
parent 723d0530
......@@ -632,6 +632,24 @@ static void clk_core_get_boundaries(struct clk_core *core,
*max_rate = min(*max_rate, clk_user->max_rate);
}
static bool clk_core_check_boundaries(struct clk_core *core,
unsigned long min_rate,
unsigned long max_rate)
{
struct clk *user;
lockdep_assert_held(&prepare_lock);
if (min_rate > core->max_rate || max_rate < core->min_rate)
return false;
hlist_for_each_entry(user, &core->clks, clks_node)
if (min_rate > user->max_rate || max_rate < user->min_rate)
return false;
return true;
}
void clk_hw_set_rate_range(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long min_rate,
unsigned long max_rate)
{
......@@ -2348,6 +2366,11 @@ int clk_set_rate_range(struct clk *clk, unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
clk->min_rate = min;
clk->max_rate = max;
if (!clk_core_check_boundaries(clk->core, min, max)) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
rate = clk_core_get_rate_nolock(clk->core);
if (rate < min || rate > max) {
/*
......@@ -2376,6 +2399,7 @@ int clk_set_rate_range(struct clk *clk, unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
}
}
out:
if (clk->exclusive_count)
clk_core_rate_protect(clk->core);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment