linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] x86/microcode/intel: Use a plain revision argument for print_ucode

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]

Message-ID: <Y8RTGguX9yXoEGKv@zn.tnic>
Date:   Sun, 15 Jan 2023 20:25:14 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, alison.schofield@...el.com,
        reinette.chatre@...el.com, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] x86/microcode/intel: Use a plain revision
 argument for print_ucode_rev()

On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 07:35:53AM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> @@ -343,33 +340,23 @@ void show_ucode_info_early(void)
>   * At this point, we can not call printk() yet. Delay printing microcode info in
>   * show_ucode_info_early() until printk() works.
>   */
> -static void print_ucode(struct ucode_cpu_info *uci)
> +static void print_ucode(int new_rev, int date)
>  {
>  	struct microcode_intel *mc;
>  	int *delay_ucode_info_p;
>  	int *current_mc_date_p;
>  
> -	mc = uci->mc;
> -	if (!mc)
> -		return;
> -
>  	delay_ucode_info_p = (int *)__pa_nodebug(&delay_ucode_info);
>  	current_mc_date_p = (int *)__pa_nodebug(&current_mc_date);
>  
>  	*delay_ucode_info_p = 1;
> -	*current_mc_date_p = mc->hdr.date;
> +	*current_mc_date_p = date;

Here's how I know you haven't tested this on 32-bit:

arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c: In function ‘print_ucode’:
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c:344:33: error: unused variable ‘mc’ [-Werror=unused-variable]
  344 |         struct microcode_intel *mc;
      |                                 ^~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
make[5]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:252: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.o] Error 1
make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode] Error 2
make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86/kernel/cpu] Error 2
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86/kernel] Error 2
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:504: arch/x86] Error 2
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make: *** [Makefile:2008: .] Error 2

Testing is overrated, right?

The maintainers can do that, ofc.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette