linux-kernel - Re: Old microcode CPU matching issue - x86/microcode/intel: Refresh the revisions that determine old

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: <cff905c5-7031-46e9-b653-6b8f232e2d0b@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:29:55 -0800
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "x86@...nel.org"
	<x86@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Thomas Gleixner
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin"
	<hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf
	<jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
	Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, Alex Murray
	<alex.murray@...onical.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Old microcode CPU matching issue - x86/microcode/intel: Refresh
 the revisions that determine old_microcode

On 11/20/2025 8:35 AM, Jon Kohler wrote:
>>
>> It attempts to take IA32_PLATFORM_ID into account when considering
>> old microcode.
> 
> Hey Dave - got a chance to give it a go, and this did not seem to solve
> the issue, and in fact it made it kinda worse as I didn’t end up seeing
> the microcode getting patched up at all now.
> 

There seems to be a simple bug in the patches. intel_get_platform_id()
already returns a mask so x86_match_cpu() shouldn't do the BIT()
operation for the platform_id.

Ignoring variable renames, this change (ontop of the patches) should
atleast fix the x86_match_cpu() issue.

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/match.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/match.c
index 23b13ffc6053..613860448855 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/match.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/match.c
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ const struct x86_cpu_id *x86_match_cpu(const struct
x86_cpu_id *match)
 		    !(BIT(c->x86_stepping) & m->steppings))
 			continue;
 		if (m->platform_mask != X86_PLATFORM_ANY &&
-		    !(BIT(c->x86_platform_id) & m->platform_mask))
+		    !(c->x86_platform_id & m->platform_mask))
 			continue;
 		if (m->feature != X86_FEATURE_ANY && !cpu_has(c, m->feature))
 			continue;


> On 6.18 rc6 with a bit of debug logging added, still seeing the same
> 
> [    0.000000] x86/CPU: microcode 0x721421856 is older than minimum 0x721421881
> [    0.000000] x86/CPU: MATCH LIST DATA: family 0x6, model 0x8f, steppings 0x100
> [    0.000000] x86/CPU: BOOT_CPU_DATA: family 0x6, model 0x8f, stepping 0x8
> [    0.000000] x86/CPU: Running old microcode
> [    3.404176] microcode: Current revision: 0x2b000620 <<<<< I do have 0x2b000643 on the system, but it didn’t give me a notice that it updated early now
> 

> This was on this proc:
> smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5416S (family: 0x6, model: 0x8f, stepping: 0x8)
> 
> Jon