[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8cHvmU6pa/rNw8n@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:40:30 -0800
From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
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 07:40:31PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:32:50AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > Well, we have an awful lot of pr_warn()'s in the kernel that talk about
> > something that was tried and failed.
>
> Well, is microcode loading failure worth to warn about?
Is it not?
>
> What if there's no microcode for that CPU?
If there is no microcode, we don't print anything. So what's loaded in the
CPU is the latest version. When we have something we can always tell if its
successful or not.
Its not a microcode file in initrd, but a matching microcode to load. If
none is found, nothing to worry about.
We just agreed to show both failed and success for late-load. Doing this is
consistent with that isn't it?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y7iYLbEJSYnVn+dW@zn.tnic/
Ingo's:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y7k9DNz%2F%2FvqBAvZK@gmail.com/
Should we treat early loading differently?
Cheers,
Ashok
Powered by blists - more mailing lists