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: X86-kernel <x86@kernel.org>,
	LKML Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
	Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/6] x86/microcode/core: Take a snapshot before and after applying microcode
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2022 11:23:36 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221227192340.8358-3-ashok.raj@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221227192340.8358-1-ashok.raj@intel.com>

The kernel caches features about each CPU's features at boot in an
x86_capability[] structure. The microcode update takes one snapshot and
compares it with the saved copy at boot.

However, the capabilities in the boot copy can be turned off as a result of
certain command line parameters or configuration restrictions. This can
cause a mismatch when comparing the values before and after the microcode
update.

microcode_check() is called after an update to report any previously
cached CPUID bits might have changed due to the update.

store_cpu_caps() basically stores the original CPU reported values and not
the OS modified values. This will avoid giving a false warning even if no
capabilities have changed.

Ignore the capabilities recorded at boot. Take a new snapshot before the
update and compare with a snapshot after the update to eliminate the false
warning.

Fixes: 1008c52c09dc ("x86/CPU: Add a microcode loader callback")
Signed-off-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
Cc: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
---
Changes since last post

- Boris  : Change function from copy_cpu_caps() -> store_cpu_caps()
- Thomas : Commit log changes.
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
index 0051ebf7c53e..e2cdf3e989e7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
@@ -432,12 +432,28 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static void store_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(void)
+static void microcode_check(struct cpuinfo_x86 *orig)
 {
 	struct cpuinfo_x86 info;
 
@@ -447,15 +463,13 @@ static void microcode_check(void)
 	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));
+	* 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().
+	*/
+	store_cpu_caps(&info);
 
-	get_cpu_cap(&info);
-
-	if (!memcmp(&info.x86_capability, &boot_cpu_data.x86_capability,
+	if (!memcmp(&info.x86_capability, &orig->x86_capability,
 		    sizeof(info.x86_capability)))
 		return;
 
@@ -470,6 +484,7 @@ static void microcode_check(void)
 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");
@@ -477,9 +492,16 @@ static int microcode_reload_late(void)
 	atomic_set(&late_cpus_in,  0);
 	atomic_set(&late_cpus_out, 0);
 
+	/*
+	 * Take a snapshot before the microcode update, so we can compare
+	 * them after the update is successful to check for any bits
+	 * changed.
+	 */
+	store_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:[~2022-12-27 19:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-27 19:23 [PATCH v2 0/6] Some fixes and cleanups for microcode Ashok Raj
2022-12-27 19:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] x86/microcode/core: Move microcode_check() to cpu/microcode/core.c Ashok Raj
2022-12-27 19:50   ` Borislav Petkov
2022-12-27 19:59     ` Ashok Raj
2022-12-27 21:01     ` [PATCH v3 1/2] x86/microcode: Add a parameter to microcode_check() to store CPU capabilities Ashok Raj
2022-12-27 21:01     ` [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/microcode/core: Take a snapshot before and after applying microcode Ashok Raj
2022-12-28 18:36       ` Ashok Raj
2022-12-27 19:23 ` Ashok Raj [this message]
2022-12-27 19:23 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] x86/microcode: Display revisions only when update is successful Ashok Raj
2022-12-27 19:23 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] x86/microcode/intel: Use a plain revision argument for print_ucode_rev() Ashok Raj
2022-12-27 19:23 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] x86/microcode/intel: Print old and new rev during early boot Ashok Raj
2022-12-27 19:23 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] x86/microcode/intel: Print when early microcode loading fails 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=20221227192340.8358-3-ashok.raj@intel.com \
    --to=ashok.raj@intel.com \
    --cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
    --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®