linux-kernel - Re: [ RFC, PATCH - 1/2, v2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages

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: <20091104122716.GA11968@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:27:16 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	dimm <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	Tigran Aivazian <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
	Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
Subject: Re: [ RFC, PATCH - 1/2, v2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode
	output messages


* dimm <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com> wrote:

> [ resending ]
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> this is in response to Mike's patch "Limit the number of microcode
> messages".
> 
> What's about the following (yet preliminary and not thoroughly tested)
> approach?
> 
> patch-1:
> 
> simplify 'struct ucode_cpu_info' and related functional logic.
> 
> 
> patch-2: 
> 
> reduce a number of similar 'microcode version' messages by printing a
> single message for all cpus with equal microcode version, like:
> 
> (1)
> [   96.589437] microcode: original microcode versions...
> [   96.589451] microcode: CPU0-1: sig=0x6f2, pf=0x20, revision=0x57
> 
> (2)
> [   96.603176] microcode: microcode versions after update...
> [   96.603193] microcode: CPU0-1: sig=0x6f2, pf=0x20, revision=0x57
> 
> 
> The new approach is used in microcode_init() [ i.e. when loading a
> module ] and microcode_write(), that's when we update all the cpus at
> once.
> 
> reload_for_cpu() and update-all-cpus-upon-resuming() use the old
> approach - a new microcode version is being reported upon applying it.
> 
> The latter might employ the similar 'report-for-all' approach as above
> but that would somewhat complicate the logic. Anyways, there are plenty
> of per-cpu messages upon system resuming so having some more
> update-microcode related ones won't harm that muc, I guess :-)

Seems sensible to me.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/