linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: processor: idle: Relocate and verify acpi_processor_ffh_lpi

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hfwWCSOdyhqn_ZHGnHrbZ1YcXk8t5o8=cGXDbc1WfnEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:06:11 +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 1/3] ACPI: processor: idle: Relocate and verify acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 1:09 PM lihuisong (C) <lihuisong@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 1/15/2026 1:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 7:52 AM Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com> wrote:
> >> The platform used LPI need check if the LPI support and the entry
> >> method is valid by the acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(). But the return
> >> of acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() in acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev()
> >> isn't verified by any caller.
> >>
> >> What's more, acpi_processor_get_power_info() is a more logical place for
> >> verifying the validity of FFH LPI than acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev().
> >> So move acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() from the latter to the former and
> >> verify its return.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 10 ++++++++--
> >>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> >> index 5f86297c8b23..cdf86874a87a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> >> @@ -1252,7 +1252,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev(struct acpi_processor *pr,
> >>
> >>          dev->cpu = pr->id;
> >>          if (pr->flags.has_lpi)
> >> -               return acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(pr->id);
> >> +               return 0;
> >>
> >>          acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr, dev);
> >>          return 0;
> >> @@ -1264,7 +1264,13 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_power_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >>
> >>          ret = acpi_processor_get_lpi_info(pr);
> >>          if (ret)
> >> -               ret = acpi_processor_get_cstate_info(pr);
> >> +               return acpi_processor_get_cstate_info(pr);
> >> +
> >> +       if (pr->flags.has_lpi) {
> >> +               ret = acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(pr->id);
> >> +               if (ret)
> >> +                       pr_err("Processor FFH LPI state is invalid.\n");
> >> +       }
> >>
> >>          return ret;
> >>   }
> >> --
> > Please reorder this behind the next patch in the series.
> Patch 2/3 depends on this patch.
> So I don't know how to reorder this patch.

I should have been more precise, sorry.

Please first convert acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev() to a void
function and then make the changes from this patch on top of that.