linux-kernel - Re: [Patch V1 3/7] x86/microcode/core: Move microcode

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 16:21:32 -0800
From:   Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
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>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch V1 3/7] x86/microcode/core: Move microcode_check() to
 cpu/microcode/core.c

On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 12:57:23PM -0800, Mehta, Sohil wrote:
> On 11/29/2022 1:08 PM, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > microcode_check() is only called from microcode/core.c. Move it and make
> > it static to prepare for upcoming fix of false negative when checking CPU
> > features after a microcode update.
> 
> Should we use this opportunity to also make the function name a bit more
> descriptive? microcode_check() seems very ambiguous to a first time reader.
> 
> > +/*
> > + * The microcode loader calls this upon late microcode load to recheck features,
> > + * only when microcode has been updated. Caller holds microcode_mutex and CPU
> > + * hotplug lock.
> > + */
> > +static void microcode_check(void)
> 
> How about, microcode_recheck_features() or simply recheck_features() since
> it is static now?

I suppose we could. But given that the function already has some comments
around it and its not having multiple call sites, it seems to be reasonably
serving its named purpose :-)

Cheers,
Ashok