lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH]Fix early microcode loading on AMD
From
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
>> Fixup the early AMD microcode loading.
>>
>> * load_microcode_amd() (and the helper its using) should not have an
>> cpu parameter.
>
> Hmm, I don't think so - we get the cpu handed down from microcode_core
> and besides the early load on 32bit needs to do find_patch(cpu).
>
>> The microcode loading is not depending on the CPU it is
>
> Mostly. There are mixed-stepping boxes which need to differentiate
> between which cpu we're applying the patch for.

I redid the patch in 5 parts, hopefully now better to understand.
Without the other changes the microcode_amd.c-part of patch 5/5 should
make it much more obvious that my change did not result in a different
behavior about which patches get loaded into the microcode cache
'pcache'.

> Btw, your config boots on my F14h box with "nomodeset" on the command
> line because it is missing radeon firmware for my gpu.
>
>> executed and all the loaded patches will end up in a global list for all
>> CPUs anyway.
>> * Return -1 (like Intels apply_microcode) when the loading fails,
>> also do not set the active microcode level on failure.
>
> Yep, this part I want. Please send it as a separate patch.

That is now patch 1/5.
Patch 2/5 is new, I skipped that part originally because I did not
want to make it even bigger...

> So I see a couple of issues in this patch and they should be separated
> into single patches - one patch taking care of one issue and explaining
> what the problem is in the commit message (I know you can do that good
> :)).


I'm still seeing some things in the microcode code that look suspicious:

Why is the X86_64 code updating uci->cpu_sig.rev, but the 32bit
version does not? And I can't see anything that reads that value.

Should apply_microcode_amd() really update uci->mc even before
checking if the microcode is newer?

The X86_32 hunk in save_microcode_in_initrd_amd() now seems obsolete.
load_microcode_amd() is no longer using find_patch() so it doesn't use
ucode_cpu_info anymore. But why is that code using
boot_cpu_data.cpu_index to find the BSP but always then passing 0 as
cpu parameter to load_microcode_amd()? If boot_cpu_data.cpu_index is
ever !=0 that code would fail.

... and collect_cpu_info_amd() also looks very weird. If csig would
not point to uci->cpu_sig then find_patch() will not be happy.
Wouldn't directly passing cpuid_eax(0x00000001) to find_patch() be a
better interface? Then the early microcode loading code would not need
to access ucode_cpu_info at all.

Torsten


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-24 00:21    [W:0.105 / U:10.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site