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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:07:22 +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 2009/11/7 Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>: > 2009/11/6 Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com>: >> On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 01:56:31PM +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>> 2009/11/6 Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com>: >> >> <snip> >> >>> >> (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(). >> >> Yeah, that fixes the wrong messages. >> The other problem of not-updated CPU microcode after suspend/resume persists. >> >>> should be as follows: >>> >>> if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&cpulist, GFP_KERNEL)) >>> return; >>> >>> + cpumask_clear(cpulist); >> >> Better use zalloc_cpumask instead of alloc/clear. > > ok. > >> >>> >> 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"? >> >> The sequence is: >> >> 1. loading microcode.ko >> 2. setting cpu2 offline >> 3. setting cpu2 online >> 4. suspend (pm-suspend) >> 5. resume >> >> microcode of CPU2 is not updated: >> >> # for i in `seq 0 3`; do lsmsr -c $i PATCH_LEVEL; done >> PATCH_LEVEL = 0x0000000001000083 >> PATCH_LEVEL = 0x0000000001000083 >> PATCH_LEVEL = 0x0000000001000065 >> PATCH_LEVEL = 0x0000000001000083 >> >> dmesg attached. > > It looks like the microcode of CPU2 was not updated at step (3) [ and > not cached in uci->mc so that there was nothing to be loaded at resume > time later on ]. > > ... > platform microcode: firmware: requesting amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin > microcode: size 1936, total_size 960 > microcode: CPU2: patch mismatch (processor_rev_id: 1020, equiv_cpu_id: 1022) > microcode: size 968, total_size 960 > PM: Syncing filesystems ... done. > ... > > These messages are from ->request_microcode_fw() but then there is > nothing from ->apply_microcode(). I'd expect to see "microcode: CPU%d: > updated (new patch_level=0x%x)". > > So either request_fw() -> generic_load_microcode() somehow fails to > find/cache a ucode (while it could do this at microcode-load time) or > apply_microcode_on_target() -> smp_call_function_single() fails in > this context. I made a test (some changes to load a cached ->mc at > cpu-online time) to verify the latter hypothesis and it didn't reveal > any problems or it requires some special conditions (also my kernel is > -rc5+). Andreas, any progress with this issue? You mentioned that the problem is also reproducible without my patches, right? --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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists