linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, microcode: Do Intel microcode revision check signed

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: <20131210155533.GI21717@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:55:33 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, microcode: Do Intel microcode revision check
 signed

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:30:00AM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 01:04:02PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > The Intel SDM Vol 3 9.11.1 Microcode update states that
> > the update revision field is signed. However we do the comparison
> > unsigned, as the comparison gets promoted.
> > 
> > Use a cast to really do a signed comparison of the microcode
> > revision.
> 
> Why not just update the struct?

It would need updating various printks I think. So I chose the simpler cast,
as that already solves the comparison problem.

-Andi
--
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/