linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] x86/microcode/intel: Print when early microcode loading fails

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: <Y8biEJErijXiGeXb@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:59:44 -0800
From:   Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        X86-kernel <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "Ashok Raj" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] x86/microcode/intel: Print when early microcode
 loading fails

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 08:35:33AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/9/23 07:35, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > -static void print_ucode(int old_rev, int new_rev, int date)
> > +static void print_ucode(bool failed, int old_rev, int new_rev, int date)
> ...
> >  	if (rev != mc->hdr.rev)
> > -		return -1;
> > +		retval = -1;
> >  
> >  	uci->cpu_sig.rev = rev;
> >  
> >  	if (early)
> > -		print_ucode(old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, mc->hdr.date);
> > +		print_ucode(retval, old_rev, mc->hdr.rev, mc->hdr.date);
> >  	else
> > -		print_ucode_info(old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, mc->hdr.date);
> > +		print_ucode_info(retval, old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, mc->hdr.date);
> >  
> > -	return 0;
> > +	return retval;
> >  }
> 
> I'm generally not a _huge_ fan of having an 'int' implicitly cast to a
> bool.  The:
> 
> 	print_ucode_info(retval, ...
> 
> Line could be right or wrong based on what the retval is logically.
> This, on the other hand:
> 
> 	bool failed = false;
> 	...
> 	if (rev != mc->hdr.rev) {
> 		retval = -1;
> 		failed = true;
> 	}
> 	...
> 	print_ucode_info(failed, old_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev, ...
> 
> *Clearly* and unambiguously matches up with:
> 
> 	static void print_ucode(bool failed, int old_rev, ...

Yes, it makes good sense.. I'll fix up next update including the commit log
that you called out.