4.17-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Tao Wang <kevin.wangtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> commit c7d1f119c48f64bebf0fa1e326af577c6152fe30 upstream. If the policy limits are updated via cpufreq_update_policy() and subsequently via sysfs, the limits stored in user_policy may be set incorrectly. For example, if both min and max are set via sysfs to the maximum available frequency, user_policy.min and user_policy.max will also be the maximum. If a policy notifier triggered by cpufreq_update_policy() lowers both the min and the max at this point, that change is not reflected by the user_policy limits, so if the max is updated again via sysfs to the same lower value, then user_policy.max will be lower than user_policy.min which shouldn't happen. In particular, if one of the policy CPUs is then taken offline and back online, cpufreq_set_policy() will fail for it due to a failing limits check. To prevent that from happening, initialize the min and max fields of the new_policy object to the ones stored in user_policy that were previously set via sysfs. Signed-off-by: Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> [ rjw: Subject & changelog ] Cc: All applicable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -696,6 +696,8 @@ static ssize_t store_##file_name \ struct cpufreq_policy new_policy; \ \ memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy)); \ + new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min; \ + new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max; \ \ ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &new_policy.object); \ if (ret != 1) \
