Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, microcode: Ensure that module is only loaded for

[Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:41:22PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 04/16/2012 07:13 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:12:00PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> >> I guess a similar change in intel microcode driver would also be
>> > 
>> >> worthwhile, right? If so, then the below patch might be useful:
>> > AFAICT, you'd need to test this on a box which is not supported
>> > (family check below). Or you can tweak the family check so that it
>> > doesn't apply and run it on a test box of yours to see whether the
>> > module still unloads properly in the error case (and doesn't remain
>> > loaded as in our case due to something in sysfs remaining registered
>> > although it shouldn't).
>> 
>> Judging by the nature of the code itself, its evident that this problem
>> is not restricted to AMD alone. In any case, I went ahead and did the
>> (tweaked) test that you suggested and here is the result:
>> 
>> 1. dmesg logs :
>> [   21.912451] microcode: CPU0 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.916028] microcode: CPU1 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.934624] microcode: CPU2 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.940276] microcode: CPU3 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.946023] microcode: CPU4 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.951678] microcode: CPU5 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.957326] microcode: CPU6 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.962935] microcode: CPU7 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.968611] microcode: CPU8 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.974212] microcode: CPU9 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.979842] microcode: CPU10 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.985577] microcode: CPU11 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.991323] microcode: CPU12 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   21.997055] microcode: CPU13 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   22.002774] microcode: CPU14 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   22.008460] microcode: CPU15 not a capable Intel processor
>> [   22.014600] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00
>> <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba
>> 
>> 2. lsmod | grep microcode
>> microcode             117749  0
>> 
>> 3. rmmod microcode
>> 
>> 4. dmesg logs:
>> [   64.297638] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [   64.302332] WARNING: at fs/sysfs/group.c:142
>> sysfs_remove_group+0xd9/0xe0() [   64.309446] Hardware name: IBM
>> System x -[7870C4Q]-
>> [   64.309449] sysfs group ffffffffa03a5110 not found for kobject
>> 'cpu0' [   64.309451] Modules linked in: ipv6 cpufreq_conservative
>> cpufreq_userspace cpufreq_powersave acpi_cpufreq mperf fuse loop
>> dm_mod coretemp crc32c_intel shpchp microcode(-) cdc_ether usbnet
>> ioatdma bnx2 mii serio_raw pcspkr pci_hotplug i2c_i801 i7core_edac
>> i2c_core dca edac_core iTCO_wdt iTCO_vendor_support tpm_tis tpm sg
>> tpm_bios rtc_cmos button uhci_hcd ehci_hcd usbcore usb_common sd_mod
>> crc_t10dif edd ext3 mbcache jbd fan processor mptsas mptscsih mptbase
>> scsi_transport_sas scsi_mod thermal thermal_sys hwmon [   64.309499]
>> Pid: 6529, comm: rmmod Not tainted
>> 3.4.0-rc3-intelucodebroken-0.0.0.28.36b5ec9-default #2 [   64.309501]
>> Call Trace:
>> [   64.309506]  [<ffffffff811fac69>] ? sysfs_remove_group+0xd9/0xe0
>> [   64.309510]  [<ffffffff811fac69>] ? sysfs_remove_group+0xd9/0xe0
>> [   64.309516]  [<ffffffff8103dd2a>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7a/0xb0
>> [   64.309522]  [<ffffffff8103de01>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x41/0x50
>> [   64.309526]  [<ffffffff811f87b6>] ? sysfs_get_dirent+0x56/0x80
>> [   64.309531]  [<ffffffff811fac69>] sysfs_remove_group+0xd9/0xe0
>> [   64.309538]  [<ffffffffa03a2118>] mc_device_remove+0x78/0xa0
>> [microcode] [   64.309545]  [<ffffffff8134b219>]
>> subsys_interface_unregister+0x89/0xd0 [   64.309553] 
>> [<ffffffffa03a357a>] microcode_exit+0x5a/0xa4 [microcode] [  
>> 64.309559]  [<ffffffff810b0c8a>] sys_delete_module+0x16a/0x2b0 [  
>> 64.309565]  [<ffffffff810a408d>] ?
>> trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x12d/0x1b0 [   64.309573] 
>> [<ffffffff814b36f9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b [   64.309576]
>> ---[ end trace 748ddf8b4218f820 ]---
>> 
>> 
>> The above warning was repeated for each cpu, of course.
>
>Right, this is the warning we're seeing too. Applying your patch fixes
>it, I s'pose? If so, maybe x86 people would pick it up.

I do not think the above has anything to do with the current version 
shipping in some distro's, which is trying to find the intel code on 
kernels >2.6.39 when running on AMD stuff, so that script in /etc/init.d 
needs attention too.  I have nuked about half of that script in my local 
copy so that it does install AMD code on AMD processors.  The errors I was 
seeing were only the lack of its ability to find the Intel code and does 
not generate any output resembling the above.

That test in that script for a minimum minor kernel version to determine 
which microcode to apply seems totally bogus to me anyway, but I am not 
privy to enough cpu info to write the correct test.

Cheers, Gene
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene>
"Most of us, when all is said and done, like what we like and make up 
reasons 
for it afterwards."
-- Soren F. Petersen