Message-ID: <Yv9vy/GTh/QInBPM@zn.tnic>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:11:07 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        LKML Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86-kernel <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Jacon Jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] x86/microcode/intel: Allow a late-load only if a
 min rev is specified

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 05:11:24AM +0000, Ashok Raj wrote:
> In general users don't have the necessary information to determine
> whether a late-load of a new microcode version has removed any feature
> (MSR, CPUID etc) between what is currently loaded and this new microcode.
> To address this issue, Intel has added a "minimum required version" field to
> a previously reserved field in the file header. Microcode updates
> should only be applied if the current microcode version is equal
> to, or greater than this minimum required version.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/alpine.DEB.2.21.1909062237580.1902@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/

That goes into a Link: tag.

> Thomas made some suggestions on how meta-data in the microcode file could
> provide Linux with information to decide if the new microcode is suitable
> candidate for late-load. But even the "simpler" option#1 requires a lot of

In all your text:

s/late-load/late loading/g

It is called CONFIG_MICROCODE_LATE_LOADING - not CONFIG_MICROCODE_LATE_LOAD.

People are confused enough already - no need for more.

> metadata and corresponding kernel code to parse it.
> 
> The proposal here is an even simpler option. The criteria for a microcode to
> be a viable late-load candidate is that no CPUID or OS visible MSR features

Simply "OS visible features" - CPUID and MSRs are only two examples. The
microcode cannot change how the OS is supposed to interact with visible
features because that causes problems.

> are removed with respect to an earlier version of the microcode.
> 
> Pseudocode for late-load is as follows:

Unknown word [Pseudocode] in commit message.
Suggestions: ['Pseudo code',

> if header.min_required_id == 0
> 	This is old format microcode, block late-load
> else if current_ucode_version < header.min_required_id
> 	Current version is too old, block late-load of this microcode.
> else
> 	OK to proceed with late-load.
> 
> Any microcode that removes a feature will set the min_version to itself.

"... that modifies the interface to a OS-visible feature..."

> This will enforce this microcode is not suitable for late-loading.
> 
> The enforcement is not in hardware and limited to kernel loader enforcing
> the requirement. It is not required for early loading of microcode to
> enforce this requirement, since the new features are only
> evaluated after early loading in the boot process.
> 
> 
> Test cases covered:
> 
> 1. With new kernel, attempting to load an older format microcode with the
>    min_rev=0 should be blocked by kernel.
> 
>    [  210.541802] microcode: Header MUST specify min version for late-load

Make that more user-friendly:

"microcode: Late loading denied: microcode header does not specify a required min version."

> 2. New microcode with a non-zero min_rev in the header, but the specified
>    min_rev is greater than what is currently loaded in the CPU should be
>    blocked by kernel.
> 
>    245.139828] microcode: Current revision 0x8f685300 is too old to update,
> must be at 0xaa000050 version or higher

"microcode: Late loading denied: Current version ... or higher. Use early loading instead."

> 3. New microcode with a min_rev < currently loaded should allow loading the
>    microcode
> 
> 4. Build initrd with microcode that has min_rev=0, or min_rev > currently
>    loaded should permit early loading microcode from initrd.
> 
> 
> Tested-by: William Xie <william.xie@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h |  4 +++-
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c  | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h
> index 4c92cea7e4b5..16b8715e0984 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h
> @@ -14,7 +14,9 @@ struct microcode_header_intel {
>  	unsigned int            pf;
>  	unsigned int            datasize;
>  	unsigned int            totalsize;
> -	unsigned int            reserved[3];
> +	unsigned int            reserved1;
> +	unsigned int		min_req_id;
> +	unsigned int            reserved3;
>  };
>  
>  struct microcode_intel {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> index c4b11e2fbe33..1eb202ec2302 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> @@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)

You can't do this in this function:

load_ucode_intel_bsp -> __load_ucode_intel -> scan_microcode -> microcode_sanity_check

which is the early path.

So you'd have to pass down the fact that you're doing late loading from
request_microcode_fw().

Now, I'm staring at that ugly refresh_fw bool arg in that function and
I *think* I did it 10 years ago because it shouldn't try to load from
the fs when it is resuming because there might not be a fs yet... or
something to that effect.

tglx might have a better idea how to check we're in the ->starting notifier...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Powered by blists - more mailing lists