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
next prev 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®