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]

Date:	Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:56:31 +0100
From:	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To:	Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"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

2009/11/6 Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com>:
>>> [ ... ]
>> >  ...
>> >  microcode: CPU0-1,3: patch_level=0x1000083
>>
>> before or after loading a module? CPU2 is down, isn't it?
>
> No, no CPU was offline at this moment. They all were brought back
> online after some CPU hotplug and/or suspend/resume tests.
>
>> >  microcode: CPU2-3: patch_level=0x1000065
>
> Both messages showed up after same ucode-update process.
>
>> same question as above.
>
> Same answer as above all CPUs are online.
>
>> Here, either CPUs 0 and 1 are down or have a
>> different version. Both above messages don't make sense taken together
>
> See, and that's the problem.
>
>> (CPU3 belongs to both sets) unless summarize_cpu_info() is utterly
>> broken.
>
> I didn't check that yet.

Yeah, this behavior is likely due to a missing cpumask_clear() in
summarize_cpu_info().

should be as follows:

      if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&cpulist, GFP_KERNEL))
              return;

+    cpumask_clear(cpulist);

>> sure, my test is somewhat limited... anyway, first of all I'd like to
>> get a clear understanding of your logs. Thanks for yout test btw. :-))
>
> I'll send you full logs asap.

Thanks. Maybe it's something about a particular sequence of actions
that triggers this behavior. Or was it reproducible with the very
first pm-suspend invocation after "modprobe microcode.ko"?


>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>

-- Dmitry
--
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/