mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "LKML Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	X86-kernel <x86@kernel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Jacon Jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Subject: [v2 04/13] x86/microcode: Fix microcode_check() compare after a new uCode update
Date: Thu,  3 Nov 2022 17:58:52 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221103175901.164783-5-ashok.raj@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221103175901.164783-1-ashok.raj@intel.com>

microcode_check() seems to take a snapshot after an update to compare with
previously cached values of x86_capabilities. Some capabilities can be
turned off by OS as a result of certain command line parameters or due to
some configuration.

Even though there was no change in CPUID bits, reloading the same microcode
threw a warning, that some CPUID bits changed.

To eliminate the false warning, take a snapshot before the update and one
after the update. This eliminates the miscompare.

Also move the microcode_check() from cpu/common.c -> cpu/microcode/core.c

Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h     |  1 -
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c         | 32 -----------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
index 67c9d73b31fa..2acc8ae0bf47 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
@@ -835,7 +835,6 @@ bool xen_set_default_idle(void);
 #endif
 
 void __noreturn stop_this_cpu(void *dummy);
-void microcode_check(void);
 
 enum l1tf_mitigations {
 	L1TF_MITIGATION_OFF,
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
index 3e508f239098..bbd362ead043 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -2305,38 +2305,6 @@ void cpu_init_secondary(void)
 }
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_MICROCODE_LATE_LOADING
-/*
- * The microcode loader calls this upon late microcode load to recheck features,
- * only when microcode has been updated. Caller holds microcode_mutex and CPU
- * hotplug lock.
- */
-void microcode_check(void)
-{
-	struct cpuinfo_x86 info;
-
-	perf_check_microcode();
-
-	/* Reload CPUID max function as it might've changed. */
-	info.cpuid_level = cpuid_eax(0);
-
-	/*
-	 * Copy all capability leafs to pick up the synthetic ones so that
-	 * memcmp() below doesn't fail on that. The ones coming from CPUID will
-	 * get overwritten in get_cpu_cap().
-	 */
-	memcpy(&info.x86_capability, &boot_cpu_data.x86_capability, sizeof(info.x86_capability));
-
-	get_cpu_cap(&info);
-
-	if (!memcmp(&info.x86_capability, &boot_cpu_data.x86_capability, sizeof(info.x86_capability)))
-		return;
-
-	pr_warn("x86/CPU: CPU features have changed after loading microcode, but might not take effect.\n");
-	pr_warn("x86/CPU: Please consider either early loading through initrd/built-in or a potential BIOS update.\n");
-}
-#endif
-
 /*
  * Invoked from core CPU hotplug code after hotplug operations
  */
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
index 712aafff96e0..9ed1f6e138d6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
@@ -40,6 +40,8 @@
 #include <asm/cmdline.h>
 #include <asm/setup.h>
 
+#include "../cpu.h"
+
 #define DRIVER_VERSION	"2.2"
 
 static struct microcode_ops	*microcode_ops;
@@ -431,6 +433,51 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static void copy_cpu_caps(struct cpuinfo_x86 *info)
+{
+	/* Reload CPUID max function as it might've changed. */
+	info->cpuid_level = cpuid_eax(0);
+
+	/*
+	 * Copy all capability leafs to pick up the synthetic ones so that
+	 * memcmp() below doesn't fail on that. The ones coming from CPUID will
+	 * get overwritten in get_cpu_cap().
+	 */
+	memcpy(info->x86_capability, &boot_cpu_data.x86_capability, sizeof(info->x86_capability));
+
+	get_cpu_cap(info);
+}
+
+/*
+ * The microcode loader calls this upon late microcode load to recheck features,
+ * only when microcode has been updated. Caller holds microcode_mutex and CPU
+ * hotplug lock.
+ */
+static void microcode_check(struct cpuinfo_x86 *orig)
+{
+	struct cpuinfo_x86 info;
+
+	perf_check_microcode();
+
+	/* Reload CPUID max function as it might've changed. */
+	info.cpuid_level = cpuid_eax(0);
+
+	/*
+	 * Copy all capability leafs to pick up the synthetic ones so that
+	 * memcmp() below doesn't fail on that. The ones coming from CPUID will
+	 * get overwritten in get_cpu_cap().
+	 */
+	memcpy(&info.x86_capability, &boot_cpu_data.x86_capability, sizeof(info.x86_capability));
+
+	get_cpu_cap(&info);
+
+	if (!memcmp(info.x86_capability, &orig->x86_capability, sizeof(info.x86_capability)))
+		return;
+
+	pr_warn("x86/CPU: CPU features have changed after loading microcode, but might not take effect.\n");
+	pr_warn("x86/CPU: Please consider either early loading through initrd/built-in or a potential BIOS update.\n");
+}
+
 /*
  * Reload microcode late on all CPUs. Wait for a sec until they
  * all gather together.
@@ -438,6 +485,7 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info)
 static int microcode_reload_late(void)
 {
 	int old = boot_cpu_data.microcode, ret;
+	struct cpuinfo_x86 info;
 
 	pr_err("Attempting late microcode loading - it is dangerous and taints the kernel.\n");
 	pr_err("You should switch to early loading, if possible.\n");
@@ -445,9 +493,10 @@ static int microcode_reload_late(void)
 	atomic_set(&late_cpus_in,  0);
 	atomic_set(&late_cpus_out, 0);
 
+	copy_cpu_caps(&info);
 	ret = stop_machine_cpuslocked(__reload_late, NULL, cpu_online_mask);
 	if (ret == 0)
-		microcode_check();
+		microcode_check(&info);
 
 	pr_info("Reload completed, microcode revision: 0x%x -> 0x%x\n",
 		old, boot_cpu_data.microcode);
-- 
2.34.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-03 18:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-03 17:58 [v2 00/13] Make microcode late loading more robust Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 01/13] x86/microcode/intel: Prevent printing updated microcode rev multiple times Ashok Raj
2022-11-04 11:00   ` Borislav Petkov
2022-11-04 13:53     ` Van De Ven, Arjan
2022-11-04 15:52       ` Borislav Petkov
2022-11-04 18:28         ` Ashok Raj
2022-11-04 20:21           ` Borislav Petkov
2022-11-06 13:35   ` Borislav Petkov
2022-11-07  4:17     ` Ashok Raj
2022-11-07 16:12     ` Ashok Raj
2022-11-07 18:47       ` Borislav Petkov
2022-11-08 23:06         ` Ashok Raj
2022-11-08 23:32           ` Dave Hansen
2022-11-09  9:18           ` Borislav Petkov
2022-12-03 13:51   ` [tip: x86/microcode] x86/microcode/intel: Do not print microcode revision and processor flags tip-bot2 for Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 02/13] x86/microcode/intel: Print old and new rev after early microcode update Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 03/13] x86/microcode/intel: Fix a hang if early loading microcode fails Ashok Raj
2022-11-09 11:25   ` Borislav Petkov
2022-11-09 16:07     ` Ashok Raj
2022-11-09 23:34       ` Borislav Petkov
2022-11-03 17:58 ` Ashok Raj [this message]
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 05/13] x86/microcode: Move late-load warning to earlier where kernel taint happens Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 06/13] x86/ipi: Support sending NMI_VECTOR as self ipi Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 07/13] x86/microcode: Place siblings in NMI loop while update in progress Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 08/13] x86/mce: Warn of a microcode update is in progress when MCE arrives Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 09/13] x86/microcode/intel: Add minimum required revision to microcode header Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 10/13] x86/microcode: Add a generic mechanism to declare support for minrev Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:58 ` [v2 11/13] x86/microcode/intel: Drop wbinvd() from microcode loading Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:59 ` [v2 12/13] x86/microcode: Display revisions only when update is successful Ashok Raj
2022-11-03 17:59 ` [v2 13/13] x86/microcode/intel: Add ability to update microcode even if rev is unchanged Ashok Raj

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20221103175901.164783-5-ashok.raj@intel.com \
    --to=ashok.raj@intel.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=jacob.jun.pan@intel.com \
    --cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®