lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix x86 microcode driver handling of multiple matching revisions
Hi Jan,

Sorry about the delay answering this.

First of all, I would like to know why is it that you have several chunks
in your microcode data which correspond to the same CPU? In the normal
data files which come from Intel there are no such chunks. Are you
concatenating the new files with the old (just in case the new update is
no good, so you can fall back to the old)?

If you give a good reason to have these multiple chunks then I will agree
that your fix should be merged.

Kind regards
Tigran

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Jan Beulich wrote:

> When multiple updates matching a given CPU are found in the update file, the
> action taken by the microcode update driver was inappropriate:
>
> - when lower revision microcode was found before matching or higher revision
> one, the driver would needlessly complain that it would not downgrade the
> CPU
> - when microcode matching the currently installed revision was found before
> newer revision code, no update would actually take place
>
> To change this behavior, the driver now concludes about possibly updates and
> issues messages only when the entire input was parsed.
>
> Additionally, this adds back (in different places, and conditionalized upon
> a new module option) some messages removed by a previous patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
>
> diff -Npru /home/jbeulich/tmp/linux-2.6.17-rc2/arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c
> 2.6.17-rc2-x86-microcode/arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c
> --- /home/jbeulich/tmp/linux-2.6.17-rc2/arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c 2006-04-26 10:55:11.000000000 +0200
> +++ 2.6.17-rc2-x86-microcode/arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c 2006-03-27 22:46:38.000000000 +0200
> @@ -91,7 +91,10 @@ MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Intel CPU (IA-32) Mi
> MODULE_AUTHOR("Tigran Aivazian <tigran@veritas.com>");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> -#define MICROCODE_VERSION "1.14"
> +static int verbose;
> +module_param(verbose, int, 0644);
> +
> +#define MICROCODE_VERSION "1.14a"
>
> #define DEFAULT_UCODE_DATASIZE (2000) /* 2000 bytes */
> #define MC_HEADER_SIZE (sizeof (microcode_header_t)) /* 48 bytes */
> @@ -122,14 +125,15 @@ static unsigned int user_buffer_size; /*
>
> typedef enum mc_error_code {
> MC_SUCCESS = 0,
> - MC_NOTFOUND = 1,
> - MC_MARKED = 2,
> - MC_ALLOCATED = 3,
> + MC_IGNORED = 1,
> + MC_NOTFOUND = 2,
> + MC_MARKED = 3,
> + MC_ALLOCATED = 4,
> } mc_error_code_t;
>
> static struct ucode_cpu_info {
> unsigned int sig;
> - unsigned int pf;
> + unsigned int pf, orig_pf;
> unsigned int rev;
> unsigned int cksum;
> mc_error_code_t err;
> @@ -164,6 +168,7 @@ static void collect_cpu_info (void *unus
> rdmsr(MSR_IA32_PLATFORM_ID, val[0], val[1]);
> uci->pf = 1 << ((val[1] >> 18) & 7);
> }
> + uci->orig_pf = uci->pf;
> }
>
> wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UCODE_REV, 0, 0);
> @@ -197,21 +202,33 @@ static inline void mark_microcode_update
> pr_debug(" Checksum 0x%x\n", cksum);
>
> if (mc_header->rev < uci->rev) {
> - printk(KERN_ERR "microcode: CPU%d not 'upgrading' to earlier revision"
> - " 0x%x (current=0x%x)\n", cpu_num, mc_header->rev, uci->rev);
> - goto out;
> + if (uci->err == MC_NOTFOUND) {
> + uci->err = MC_IGNORED;
> + uci->cksum = mc_header->rev;
> + } else if (uci->err == MC_IGNORED && uci->cksum < mc_header->rev)
> + uci->cksum = mc_header->rev;
> } else if (mc_header->rev == uci->rev) {
> - /* notify the caller of success on this cpu */
> - uci->err = MC_SUCCESS;
> - goto out;
> + if (uci->err < MC_MARKED) {
> + /* notify the caller of success on this cpu */
> + uci->err = MC_SUCCESS;
> + }
> + } else if (uci->err != MC_ALLOCATED || mc_header->rev > uci->mc->hdr.rev) {
> + pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d found a matching microcode update with "
> + " revision 0x%x (current=0x%x)\n", cpu_num, mc_header->rev, uci->rev);
> + uci->cksum = cksum;
> + uci->pf = pf; /* keep the original mc pf for cksum calculation */
> + uci->err = MC_MARKED; /* found the match */
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu_num) {
> + if (ucode_cpu_info[cpu_num].mc == uci->mc) {
> + uci->mc = NULL;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + if (uci->mc != NULL) {
> + vfree(uci->mc);
> + uci->mc = NULL;
> + }
> }
> -
> - pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d found a matching microcode update with "
> - " revision 0x%x (current=0x%x)\n", cpu_num, mc_header->rev, uci->rev);
> - uci->cksum = cksum;
> - uci->pf = pf; /* keep the original mc pf for cksum calculation */
> - uci->err = MC_MARKED; /* found the match */
> -out:
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -253,10 +270,8 @@ static int find_matching_ucodes (void)
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu_num) {
> struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu_num;
> - if (uci->err != MC_NOTFOUND) /* already found a match or not an online cpu*/
> - continue;
>
> - if (sigmatch(mc_header.sig, uci->sig, mc_header.pf, uci->pf))
> + if (sigmatch(mc_header.sig, uci->sig, mc_header.pf, uci->orig_pf))
> mark_microcode_update(cpu_num, &mc_header, mc_header.sig, mc_header.pf,
> mc_header.cksum);
> }
>
> @@ -295,9 +310,8 @@ static int find_matching_ucodes (void)
> }
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu_num) {
> struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu_num;
> - if (uci->err != MC_NOTFOUND) /* already found a match or not an online cpu*/
> - continue;
> - if (sigmatch(ext_sig.sig, uci->sig, ext_sig.pf, uci->pf)) {
> +
> + if (sigmatch(ext_sig.sig, uci->sig, ext_sig.pf, uci->orig_pf)) {
> mark_microcode_update(cpu_num, &mc_header, ext_sig.sig, ext_sig.pf,
> ext_sig.cksum);
> }
> }
> @@ -368,6 +382,13 @@ static void do_update_one (void * unused
> struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu_num;
>
> if (uci->mc == NULL) {
> + if (verbose) {
> + if (uci->err == MC_SUCCESS)
> + printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d already at revision 0x%x\n",
> + cpu_num, uci->rev);
> + else
> + printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: No new microcode data for CPU%d\n", cpu_num);
> + }
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -426,6 +447,9 @@ out_free:
> ucode_cpu_info[j].mc = NULL;
> }
> }
> + if (ucode_cpu_info[i].err == MC_IGNORED && verbose)
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "microcode: CPU%d not 'upgrading' to earlier revision"
> + " 0x%x (current=0x%x)\n", i, ucode_cpu_info[i].cksum, ucode_cpu_info[i].rev);
> }
> out:
> return error;
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-04 09:30    [W:0.068 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site