linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3 Part2 3/9] x86/microcode/intel: Fix collect_cpu

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: <388d0260-042c-209f-a986-c9ca47061b3c@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:13:58 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...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>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 Part2 3/9] x86/microcode/intel: Fix collect_cpu_info()
 to reflect current microcode

On 1/30/23 13:39, Ashok Raj wrote:
> Currently collect_cpu_info() is only returning what was cached earlier
> instead of reading the current revision from the proper MSR.
> 
> Collect the current revision and report that value instead of reflecting
> what was cached in the past.
> 
> [TBD:
>     Need to change microcode/amd.c. I didn't quite follow the logic since
>     it reports the revision from the patch file, instead of reporting the
>     real PATCH_LEVEL MSR.
> 
>     Untested on AMD.
> ]

This thread is meandering a bit.  I think it's because this changelog
doesn't have a problem statement.  It's hard to agree on a patch being a
solution to anything if we haven't first agreed on the problem.

What is the problem?

What does this "fix"?