[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y2K+9jfb5xiYE3eU@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 20:03:18 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
Cc: hdegoede@...hat.com, markgross@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, 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 05/14] x86/microcode/intel: Expose
find_matching_signature() for IFS
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 01:34:04PM -0700, Jithu Joseph wrote:
> IFS uses 'scan test images' provided by Intel that can be regarded as
> firmware. IFS test image carries microcode header with extended signature
> table.
>
> Expose find_matching_signature() for verifying if the test image
> header or the extended signature table indicate whether an IFS test image
> is fit to run on a system. Add microcode_intel_ prefix to the
> function name.
This doesn't look like the right design to me:
If this is going to be generic CPU-vendor related code which other
facilities like the microcode loader can use, then the prefix should be
intel_<bla>. Just like intel_cpu_signatures_match().
Then that code should either be in a lib-like compilation unit or simply
in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c. Just like intel_cpu_signatures_match().
Ok?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists