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 19:29:58 -0800
From:   "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
To:     Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...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 11/8/2022 7:03 PM, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> 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?

Thanks again Sohil for reviewing.
Only the next print, associated with the version check was meant to be modified. 
Looks like I mistakenly updated the one above also.
I will await all comments and correct this in the next revision.

> 
>> -    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>

Jithu