linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] ACPI: processor_idle: Fix invalid comparison with insertion sort for latency

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 09:28:39 +0200
From: Julian Sikorski <belegdol@...il.com>
To: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>, rafael@...nel.org
Cc: lenb@...nel.org, mario.limonciello@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw, alexdeucher@...il.com, regressions@...mhuis.info,
 linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ACPI: processor_idle: Fix invalid comparison with
 insertion sort for latency

Am 01.07.24 um 22:56 schrieb Kuan-Wei Chiu:
> The acpi_cst_latency_cmp comparison function currently used for sorting
> C-state latencies does not satisfy transitivity, causing incorrect
> sorting results. Specifically, if there are two valid acpi_processor_cx
> elements A and B and one invalid element C, it may occur that A < B,
> A = C, and B = C. Sorting algorithms assume that if A < B and A = C,
> then C < B, leading to incorrect ordering.
> 
> Given the small size of the array (<=8), we replace the library sort
> function with a simple insertion sort that properly ignores invalid
> elements and sorts valid ones based on latency. This change ensures
> correct ordering of the C-state latencies.
> 
> Fixes: 65ea8f2c6e23 ("ACPI: processor idle: Fix up C-state latency if not ordered")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Julian Sikorski <belegdol@...il.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/70674dc7-5586-4183-8953-8095567e73df@gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
> ---
> v3 -> v4:
> - Rename the parameter 'arr' to 'states'.
> - Add empty lines to enhance readability.
> 
> Note: I only performed a build test and a simple unit test to ensure
>        the latency of valid elements is correctly sorted in the randomly
>        generated data.
> 

Hello,

thanks for the patch. I have tested this applied on top of Fedora 6.9.7 
kernel on my Asus laptop and the message about suspend not reaching the 
deepest state is gone. Thank you.
I wonder whether this will also fix random S3 suspend issues I have been 
seeing on my 5600x since 6.9 kernel too. I will definitely try.

Best regards,
Julian

Tested-by: Julian Sikorski <belegdol@...il.com>

>   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 37 +++++++++++++++--------------------
>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> index bd6a7857ce05..831fa4a12159 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@
>   #include <linux/acpi.h>
>   #include <linux/dmi.h>
>   #include <linux/sched.h>       /* need_resched() */
> -#include <linux/sort.h>
>   #include <linux/tick.h>
>   #include <linux/cpuidle.h>
>   #include <linux/cpu.h>
> @@ -386,25 +385,24 @@ static void acpi_processor_power_verify_c3(struct acpi_processor *pr,
>   	acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_BUS_MASTER_RLD, 1);
>   }
>   
> -static int acpi_cst_latency_cmp(const void *a, const void *b)
> +static void acpi_cst_latency_sort(struct acpi_processor_cx *states, size_t length)
>   {
> -	const struct acpi_processor_cx *x = a, *y = b;
> +	int i, j, k;
>   
> -	if (!(x->valid && y->valid))
> -		return 0;
> -	if (x->latency > y->latency)
> -		return 1;
> -	if (x->latency < y->latency)
> -		return -1;
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -static void acpi_cst_latency_swap(void *a, void *b, int n)
> -{
> -	struct acpi_processor_cx *x = a, *y = b;
> +	for (i = 1; i < length; i++) {
> +		if (!states[i].valid)
> +			continue;
>   
> -	if (!(x->valid && y->valid))
> -		return;
> -	swap(x->latency, y->latency);
> +		for (j = i - 1, k = i; j >= 0; j--) {
> +			if (!states[j].valid)
> +				continue;
> +
> +			if (states[j].latency > states[k].latency)
> +				swap(states[j].latency, states[k].latency);
> +
> +			k = j;
> +		}
> +	}
>   }
>   
>   static int acpi_processor_power_verify(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> @@ -449,10 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_power_verify(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>   
>   	if (buggy_latency) {
>   		pr_notice("FW issue: working around C-state latencies out of order\n");
> -		sort(&pr->power.states[1], max_cstate,
> -		     sizeof(struct acpi_processor_cx),
> -		     acpi_cst_latency_cmp,
> -		     acpi_cst_latency_swap);
> +		acpi_cst_latency_sort(&pr->power.states[1], max_cstate);
>   	}
>   
>   	lapic_timer_propagate_broadcast(pr);