[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWpQ9Wbb7u4ss0mt@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 13:32:37 -0800
From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/microcode: Rework early revisions reporting
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 09:41:46PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 12:33:34PM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > I'll get a dmesg shortly once i get my test system back.
>
> Thanks.
>
dmesg for the microcode part here below:
https://paste.debian.net/hidden/e911dffc/
> > What I meant was
>
> I know what you meant. Did you see the diff I sent you?
>
> It has the fix already:
>
> @@ -410,13 +421,19 @@ void __init load_ucode_intel_bsp(struct early_load_data *ed)
> {
> struct ucode_cpu_info uci;
>
> - ed->old_rev = intel_get_microcode_revision();
> -
> uci.mc = get_microcode_blob(&uci, false);
> - if (uci.mc && apply_microcode_early(&uci) == UCODE_UPDATED)
> + ed->old_rev = uci.cpu_sig.rev;
> +
> + uc_dbg("old_rev: 0x%x", ed->old_rev);
> +
> + if (uci.mc && apply_microcode_early(&uci) == UCODE_UPDATED) {
> ucode_patch_va = UCODE_BSP_LOADED;
> + ed->new_rev = uci.cpu_sig.rev;
> +
> + uc_dbg("updated, new_rev: 0x%x", ed->new_rev);
> + }
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The assignment is now inside the UCODE_UPDATED conditional.
The first patch I tried was exactly this, but assumed having the fix in
core.c would help both AMD/Intel.
Assuming if the same loaded patch was also present in initrd,
load_ucode_amd_bsp()
early_apply_microcode()
__apply_microcode_amd()
old_rev will still be non-zero.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists