[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875xjcteq2.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:53:25 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Kevin Koster <lkml@...ertech.com>
Cc: Oerg866 <oerg866@...glemail.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo
Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode: Consolidate the loader enablement
On Tue, Apr 08 2025 at 19:22, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> static struct microcode_ops *microcode_ops;
> -bool dis_ucode_ldr = true;
> +static int dis_ucode_ldr = -1;
This tristate muck is disgusting.
> bool force_minrev = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MICROCODE_LATE_FORCE_MINREV);
> module_param(force_minrev, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);
> @@ -95,11 +95,20 @@ static bool amd_check_current_patch_level(void)
> return false;
> }
>
> -static bool __init check_loader_disabled_bsp(void)
> +bool __init microcode_loader_disabled(void)
> {
> - static const char *__dis_opt_str = "dis_ucode_ldr";
> - const char *cmdline = boot_command_line;
> - const char *option = __dis_opt_str;
> + if (dis_ucode_ldr < 0) {
> + if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "dis_ucode_ldr") <= 0)
> + dis_ucode_ldr = 0;
> + else
> + goto disable;
> + }
It just exists to make the above a one time operation. What's wrong with
having:
static void __init microcode_check_cmdline(void)
{
if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "dis_ucode_ldr") <= 0)
dis_ucode_ldr = false;
}
and call that once at the proper place?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists