[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8m+pr3t84VQTQTM@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 14:05:26 -0800
From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Stefan Talpalaru <stefantalpalaru@...oo.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Peter Zilstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 Part2 1/5] x86/microcode: Move late load warning to
the same function that taints kernel
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:48:30PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13 2023 at 09:29, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > Currently the warning about late loading and tainting are issued from two
> > different functions.
> >
> > Later patches will re-enable microcode late-loading.
> >
> > Having both messages in the same function helps issuing warnings only
> > when required.
> >
> > Move the warning from microcode_reload_late() -> reload_store() where the
> > kernel tainting also happens.
> >
> > No functional change.
>
> I had to read this more than once to make sense of it. Let me try a
> translation:
>
> Late microcode loading issues a warning and taints the
> kernel. Tainting the kernel and emitting the warning happens in two
> different functions.
>
> The upcoming support for safe late loading under certain conditions
> needs to prevent both the warning and the tainting when the safe
> conditions are met. That would require to hand the result of the safe
> condition check into the function which emits the warning.
>
> To avoid this awkward construct, move the warning into reload_store()
> next to the taint() invocation as that is also the function which will
> later contain the safe condition check.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Did my decoder get that right?
>
Yes, that is accurate.. inspite of my awkward phrasing :-(
I should copy this commit verbatim before i resend :-)
Cheers,
Ashok
Powered by blists - more mailing lists