[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9mcCxYK/VPB0ATM@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:54:03 -0800
From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
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>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Martin Pohlack <mpohlack@...zon.de>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...el.com>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 Part2 1/9] x86/microcode: Taint kernel only if
microcode loading was successful
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 09:20:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 08:51:25AM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > remove ret = 0 during initialization since its cleared right below. (tglx)
>
> Sure.
>
> > Need to set ret explicitly to either -EINVAL, or size. Otherwise it will be
> > endlessly waiting for write to complete. (As Aubrey pointed out)
>
> Then do:
>
> tmp_ret = microcode_ops->request_microcode_fw(bsp, µcode_pdev->dev);
> if (tmp_ret != UCODE_NEW)
> return size;
>
> to signal what it is. It certainly ain't an error if it doesn't find new
> microcode.
It's not an error, only when request_microcode() returns UCODE_ERROR, should
it return -EINVAL, if its UCODE_NFOUND, or otherwise the code should treat
as success.
The diff I attached was: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y9lHDWjjnqdletL3@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com/
if (tmp_ret != UCODE_NEW)
- return ret;
+ return (tmp_ret == UCODE_ERROR ? -EINVAL : size);
Does the above look fine?
>
> > I think its safe to leave ret as is, since microcode_reload_late() only
> > returns -1, or 0.
>
> No it doesn't. Hint: stop_machine_cpuslocked().
>
> > Pull this into the ret == 0, so taint only if the update was successful?
>
> Ok.
>
> > And add a message so its not silent?
>
> You'd add a printk for every possible operation, wouldn't you?
:-) Not like that.. But looking through most of the cases that does
add_taint() either have some print, or there some big spalt message around
it.
This shouldn't be noisy, but if you think this isn't needed, it can go
away.
>
> See, the world doesn't revolve around microcode loading. If that thing
> fails, then someone has done a bad job at the CPU vendor testing,
> provided the code does the right thing.
>
When it fails due to current_rev < min_rev, Isn't it good to add indication
to user space that it didn't succeed? Thomas wanted these return codes, so
someone scripting can get a status after an attempt to load.
Otherwise agree, it shouldn't generally fail.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists