lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 25 Mar 2011 00:14:24 -0700
FromBurt Triplett <>
SubjectRe: x86/microcode: intel: correctly handle negative revisions
On 3/24/2011 7:09 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> As per the Intel SDM vol 3A, microcode revisions are signed 32-bit
> numbers. The code was handling them as unsigned int in some places and as
> an int in other places.
>
> As per the clarification posted by Burt Triplett from the Intel BITS
> project, negative microcode revisions are used internally at Intel and
> should always get loaded. Also, they should not be overriden unless we
> can somehow differentiate "automated" loading from "forced" loading (which
> we cannot at this time). Burt says the SDM will be updated with this
> information eventually.
>
> The code should:
>
> 1. Ignore attempts to load a zero-revision microcode (that value is
> reserved for the CPU to signal that it is running with the factory
> microcode, and must not be present in a normal microcode update);
>
> 2. Always load negative revision microcodes, to help Intel's engineers;
>
> 3. Avoid upgrading from a BIOS-loaded negative revision microcode to
> a normal microcode, to not get in the way of Intel's engineers.
>
> 4. Upgrade from revision 0 (no updates loaded in CPU) to any revision.
>
> It was already doing some of that, but I don't feel like trying to track
> down exactly how the old code with its mix of signed/unsigned handling of
> revisions would behave in each of the above cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>
> LKML-Reference: <4D87E2CD.6020306@pbjtriplett.org>
> Cc: Tigran Aivazian <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: Burt Triplett <burt@pbjtriplett.org>

Reviewed-by: Burt Triplett <burt@pbjtriplett.org>

Thanks,
Burt Triplett


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-25 08:17    [from the cache]
©2003-2010