linux-kernel - RE: [GIT PULL] x86/microcode for v3.9-rc1

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]

Date:	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 00:09:27 +0000
From:	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [GIT PULL] x86/microcode for v3.9-rc1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@...en8.de]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:53 PM
> To: Yu, Fenghua; H. Peter Anvin
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin; Linus Torvalds; Ingo Molnar; Linux Kernel Mailing
> List; Thomas Gleixner; Yinghai Lu
> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/microcode for v3.9-rc1
> 
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:28:06PM +0000, Yu, Fenghua wrote:
> >> gcc is warning that the function is using lots of stack. In the
> >> context that it is running in this is most likely not a problem
> >> given how small the overrun is, but it might be worthwhile to see if
> >> there is anything which can be moved out to static storage or some
> >> other variant.
> >>
> >> Static storage is tricky to use in this context since it runs in
> >> flat linear mode (without paging, and therefore without the +3 GB
> >> offset) on 32 bits.
> >
> > The errors might be related to the arrays defined
> > mc_saved_tmp[MAX_UCODE_COUNT].
> >
> > Could you send your .config to me so that I can reproduce the issue?
> > I don't see the issue in my build environment and in Fengguang's test
> > environment.
> 
> Ok, forget it. It was some local .config file corruption which caused
> include/generated/autoconf.h and include/config/auto.conf to have a
> line
> 
> CONFIG_FRAME_WARN=1024
> 
> which would cause the warnings.
> 
> The 1024 ceiling value is also consistent with the warnings complaining
> about something being > 1024 bytes.
> 
> Default CONFIG_FRAME_WARN on x86_64 is 2048 which explains why those
> warnings never trigger on 64-bit.
> 
> So, we all can relax ourselves, especially I :-)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
> --

Ok. Agree, 1024 is too small. Nice to know that:)

Merci.

-Fenghua