linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/14] x86/microcode/intel: Expose microcode_sanity

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]

Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2022 00:28:41 -0700
From:   Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To:     Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>, <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        <markgross@...nel.org>
CC:     <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
        <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <x86@...nel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        <tony.luck@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>, <thiago.macieira@...el.com>,
        <athenas.jimenez.gonzalez@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] x86/microcode/intel: Expose
 microcode_sanity_check()

On 10/21/2022 1:34 PM, Jithu Joseph wrote:

> Refactor header version as a parameter and expose this function.

Isn't the header version part of the microcode data itself?

Microcode Format
    +----------------------+  Base
    |Header Version        |
    +----------------------+
    |Update revision       |
    +----------------------+

If so, why the need to pass it as a parameter to sanity_check()?

> 
> No functional change intended.

Maybe skip this statement. Apart from adding a parameter to an newly 
exported function, there is a change in an error print as well.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> index 5473b094baee..bc3f33a25d7a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@
>   #include <asm/setup.h>
>   #include <asm/msr.h>
>   
> +#define MICROCODE_HEADER_VER 1
> +

Should this define be in a central location, like microcode_intel.h?

You would soon be adding a define for IFS_HEADER_VER. Having them 
defined together would make it easier to follow.

Sohil