linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, amd-ucode: Remove needless log 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: <20091109133515.GD18592@alberich.amd.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:35:15 +0100
From:	Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, amd-ucode: Remove needless log messages

On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 03:57:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com> wrote:

 [...]

> > -	if (mc_header->processor_rev_id != equiv_cpu_id) {
> > -		printk(KERN_ERR	"microcode: CPU%d: patch mismatch "
> > -		       "(processor_rev_id: %x, equiv_cpu_id: %x)\n",
> > -		       cpu, mc_header->processor_rev_id, equiv_cpu_id);
> > +	if (mc_header->processor_rev_id != equiv_cpu_id)
> >  		return 0;
> > -	}
> >  
> >  	/* ucode might be chipset specific -- currently we don't support this */
> >  	if (mc_header->nb_dev_id || mc_header->sb_dev_id) {
> 
> but why remove this one? Someone tries to load a mismatching microcode 
> file, isnt that some sort of bug in user-space? (Which ought to find out 
> whether it has anything for the CPU at hand, and only attempt it if it's 
> matching - or so.)

The ucode file that we provide contains many ucode patches -- its a
"container" file providing patches for several CPUs. Of course this
means that there are patches in the file which are not meant for that
CPU -- that is no error case but rather normal.

> maybe it's not a KERN_ERR but KERN_INFO, but still.

KERN_DEBUG at the most. It's simple as that: if the CPU has same
PATCH_LEVEL before and after microcode.ko tried to update the ucode,
there either was no ucode-file available or it just didn't contain a
newer ucode version for this CPU.

Andreas
--
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/