linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] ACPI: processor: idle: Mark the state as invalid if its entry method is illegal

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]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0htRKzEhe3yWC52tnJnDBwH3U=ndWX+6ZjguhstuHcWhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 16:00:56 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@...wei.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sudeep.Holla@....com, linuxarm@...wei.com, 
	jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, zhenglifeng1@...wei.com, 
	yubowen8@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] ACPI: processor: idle: Mark the state as invalid
 if its entry method is illegal

On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 10:30 AM lihuisong (C) <lihuisong@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>
> 在 2025/11/4 1:49, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> > On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:42 AM Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com> wrote:
> >> According to ACPI spec, entry method in LPI sub-package must be buffer
> >> or integer. And the entry method is very key in cpuidle. So mark the state
> >> as invalid.
> >>
> >> Fixes: a36a7fecfe60 ("ACPI / processor_idle: Add support for Low Power Idle(LPI) states")
> >> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 3 +++
> >>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> >> index 341825e8ac63..9f1040eac051 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> >> @@ -956,6 +956,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle,
> >>                          lpi_state->entry_method = ACPI_CSTATE_INTEGER;
> >>                          lpi_state->address = obj->integer.value;
> >>                  } else {
> >> +                       pr_debug("Entry method of state-%d is illegal, disable it.\n",
> >> +                                state_idx);
> >> +                       lpi_state->flags = 0;
> > Why does lpi_state->flags need to be cleared, isn't it 0 already?
> Good point.
> Do we need to add debug log?

Well, is it helpful?