Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Using cpufreq_for_each_entry() to iterate in extract_io()
Zhongqiu Han <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-pm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/10/2026 2:10 PM, lirongqing wrote: > From: Li RongQing <[email protected]> > > In extract_io(), the loop iterates up to perf->state_count. However, > when building policy->freq_table in acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(), duplicate > frequency entries are skipped, making freq_table smaller than > perf->state_count. > > Iterating perf->state_count times directly over policy->freq_table[i] can > result in out-of-bounds array reads. Furthermore, policy->freq_table[i] There is no out-of-bounds access. The array has "state_count + 1" elements, so every index in "[0, state_count)" is inside the allocation. right? The changelog looks like a memory-safety fix, which it is not, and that wording alone would get the patch (mis)routed to stable and to CVE bots. > does not necessarily correspond to perf->states[i], as the original P-state > index is stored in freq_table[entry].driver_data. Yes, the real defect is the index space mismatch. Might be good to note the side effects of it, AFAICT freq_table[i] is not perf->states[i] once any _PSS entry has been skipped. The function can therefore return a frequency belonging to a different P-state, or 0 (zeroed tail entries), or CPUFREQ_TABLE_END (~1u) when "i == valid_states", i.e. 0xfffffffe kHz reported as a frequency. That last one is worth spelling out. > > Fix this by using cpufreq_for_each_entry() to iterate over > policy->freq_table, similar to extract_msr(). > Please add one Fixes tag here as well. > Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 9 ++++----- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > index 21639d9..87e4923 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > @@ -196,15 +196,14 @@ static int check_amd_hwpstate_cpu(unsigned int cpuid) > static unsigned extract_io(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u32 value) > { > struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data; > + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *pos; > struct acpi_processor_performance *perf; > - int i; > > perf = to_perf_data(data); > > - for (i = 0; i < perf->state_count; i++) { > - if (value == perf->states[i].status) > - return policy->freq_table[i].frequency; > - } > + cpufreq_for_each_entry(pos, policy->freq_table) > + if (value == perf->states[pos->driver_data].status) > + return pos->frequency; > return 0; > } One more potential same issue is in func get_cur_freq_on_cpu() cached_freq = policy->freq_table[to_perf_data(data)->state].frequency; It is better to fix it as well. For v2, please use ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl to generate the CC list so [email protected] doesn't get missed. Thanks > -- Thx and BRs, Zhongqiu Han