linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/14] 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, 8 Nov 2022 19:03:54 -0800
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 v2 06/14] x86/microcode/intel: Expose
 microcode_sanity_check()

On 11/7/2022 2:53 PM, Jithu Joseph wrote:
> IFS test image carries the same microcode header as regular Intel
> microcode blobs. Microcode blobs  use header version of 1,
> whereas IFS test images will use header version of 2.
> 
> microcode_sanity_check() can be used by IFS driver to perform
> sanity check of the IFS test images too.
> 
> Refactor header version as a parameter, move it to cpu/intel.c
> and expose this function. Qualify the function name with intel.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>

...

> +	if (data_size + MC_HEADER_SIZE > total_size) {
> +		if (print_err)
> +			pr_err("Error: invalid/unknown microcode update format.\n");
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +

The wording for the "bad file size" print seems to have changed during 
the move. Any specific reason for this?

> -	if (data_size + MC_HEADER_SIZE > total_size) {
> -		if (print_err)
> -			pr_err("Error: bad microcode data file size.\n");
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -	}
> -

Other than that,

Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>