linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.16 179/328] x86/microcode: Update the new microcode revision unconditionally

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: <lsq.1544392233.242229314@decadent.org.uk>
Date:   Sun, 09 Dec 2018 21:50:33 +0000
From:   Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...e.de>,
        prarit@...hat.com, "Filippo Sironi" <sironi@...zon.de>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 3.16 179/328] x86/microcode: Update the new microcode
 revision unconditionally

3.16.62-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Filippo Sironi <sironi@...zon.de>

commit 8da38ebaad23fe1b0c4a205438676f6356607cfc upstream.

Handle the case where microcode gets loaded on the BSP's hyperthread
sibling first and the boot_cpu_data's microcode revision doesn't get
updated because of early exit due to the siblings sharing a microcode
engine.

For that, simply write the updated revision on all CPUs unconditionally.

Signed-off-by: Filippo Sironi <sironi@...zon.de>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: prarit@...hat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1533050970-14385-1-git-send-email-sironi@amazon.de
[bwh: Backported to 3.16:
 - Keep returning 0 on success
 - Adjust context]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c
@@ -214,26 +214,26 @@ int apply_microcode_amd(int cpu)
 	rdmsr(MSR_AMD64_PATCH_LEVEL, rev, dummy);
 
 	/* need to apply patch? */
-	if (rev >= mc_amd->hdr.patch_id) {
-		c->microcode = rev;
-		uci->cpu_sig.rev = rev;
-		return 0;
-	}
+	if (rev >= mc_amd->hdr.patch_id)
+		goto out;
 
 	if (__apply_microcode_amd(mc_amd)) {
 		pr_err("CPU%d: update failed for patch_level=0x%08x\n",
 			cpu, mc_amd->hdr.patch_id);
 		return -1;
 	}
-	pr_info("CPU%d: new patch_level=0x%08x\n", cpu,
-		mc_amd->hdr.patch_id);
 
-	uci->cpu_sig.rev = mc_amd->hdr.patch_id;
-	c->microcode = mc_amd->hdr.patch_id;
+	rev = mc_amd->hdr.patch_id;
+
+	pr_info("CPU%d: new patch_level=0x%08x\n", cpu, rev);
+
+out:
+	uci->cpu_sig.rev = rev;
+	c->microcode	 = rev;
 
 	/* Update boot_cpu_data's revision too, if we're on the BSP: */
 	if (c->cpu_index == boot_cpu_data.cpu_index)
-		boot_cpu_data.microcode = mc_amd->hdr.patch_id;
+		boot_cpu_data.microcode = rev;
 
 	return 0;
 }
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -161,11 +161,8 @@ int apply_microcode(int cpu)
 	 * already.
 	 */
 	rev = intel_get_microcode_revision();
-	if (rev >= mc_intel->hdr.rev) {
-		uci->cpu_sig.rev = rev;
-		c->microcode = rev;
-		return 0;
-	}
+	if (rev >= mc_intel->hdr.rev)
+		goto out;
 
 	/* write microcode via MSR 0x79 */
 	wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UCODE_WRITE,
@@ -185,8 +182,9 @@ int apply_microcode(int cpu)
 		mc_intel->hdr.date >> 24,
 		(mc_intel->hdr.date >> 16) & 0xff);
 
+out:
 	uci->cpu_sig.rev = rev;
-	c->microcode = rev;
+	c->microcode	 = rev;
 
 	/* Update boot_cpu_data's revision too, if we're on the BSP: */
 	if (c->cpu_index == boot_cpu_data.cpu_index)