linux-kernel - Re: [Patch V1 2/7] x86/microcode/intel: Remove retries on early microcode load

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:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 15:53:52 -0800
From:   Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     X86-kernel <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Tony Luck" <tony.luck@...el.com>, <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch V1 2/7] x86/microcode/intel: Remove retries on early
 microcode load

On 11/29/2022 1:08 PM, Ashok Raj wrote:
> -
> -	if (apply_microcode_early(&uci, true)) {
> -		/* Mixed-silicon system? Try to refetch the proper patch: */
> -		*iup = NULL;
> -
> -		goto reget;
> -	}
> +	apply_microcode_early(&uci, true);

After this change, none of the callers of apply_microcode_early() check 
the return code.

In future, do we expect callers to care about the return code? The rest 
patches in this series don't seem to suggest so. Also, the expected 
error printing happens in the function itself.

Should the return type for apply_microcode_early() be changed to void 
(in a follow-up patch)?

Sohil