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: <20241220213711.1892696-7-sohil.mehta@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 21:37:01 +0000
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: x86@...nel.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 06/15] x86/microcode: Update the Intel processor flag scan check

The check whether to read IA32_PLATFORM_ID MSR is misleading. It doesn't
seem to consider family while comparing the model number. This works
because init_intel_microcode() bails out if the processor family is less
than 6. It is better to update the current check to specifically include
family 6.

Ideally, a VFM check would make it more readable. But, there isn't a
macro to derive VFM from sig.

Signed-off-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
index f3d534807d91..734819a12d5f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
@@ -74,7 +74,8 @@ void intel_collect_cpu_info(struct cpu_signature *sig)
 	sig->pf = 0;
 	sig->rev = intel_get_microcode_revision();
 
-	if (x86_model(sig->sig) >= 5 || x86_family(sig->sig) > 6) {
+	/* TODO: Simplify this using a VFM check? */
+	if ((x86_family(sig->sig) == 6 && x86_model(sig->sig) >= 5) || x86_family(sig->sig) > 6) {
 		unsigned int val[2];
 
 		/* get processor flags from MSR 0x17 */
-- 
2.43.0


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ