From: Fouad Hilly <fouad.hilly@cloud.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] x86: Update x86 low level version check of microcode
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 15:33:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJKAvHZBmxWCW_rUR9FEY2CkJL8CMw6ByKASukaxE2ubtFY4-g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1f16e73f-a5a9-4816-8054-81ad0c186030@suse.com>
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 9:45 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 30.04.2024 14:47, Fouad Hilly wrote:
> > Update microcode version check at Intel and AMD Level by:
> > Preventing the low level code from sending errors if the microcode
> > version is not a newer version. this is required to allow developers to do
> > ucode loading testing, including the introduction of Intel "min rev" field,
> > which requires an override mechanism for newer version checks.
>
> Won't "min rev" checking, for being Intel-only, require quite the opposite,
> i.e. leaving more of the checking to vendor specific code?
The checking of the microcode signature and if it is applicable to the
CPU, will be at vendor code level i.e Intel\AMD.
"min_rev" mention to be removed. This change is for microcode
downgrade capability.
>
> > Even though
> > the check for newer is removed at this level, it still exists at higher
> > common level, where by default only newer version will be processed.
> > The option to override version check, will be added as part of this patch
> > series.
>
> Please avoid wording like "this patch", "this commit", and all the more
> "this patch series". Especially this last one will become completely
> meaningless once part of a commit message in the tree.
>
Noted and will be fixed in V4
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/amd.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/amd.c
> > @@ -384,11 +384,10 @@ static struct microcode_patch *cf_check cpu_request_microcode(
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * If the new ucode covers current CPU, compare ucodes and store the
> > - * one with higher revision.
> > + * If the microcode covers current CPU, then store its
> > + * revision.
> > */
>
> Nit: This can become a single line comment now, can't it? (Again then in Intel
> code.)
>
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> > @@ -294,8 +294,7 @@ static int cf_check apply_microcode(const struct microcode_patch *patch)
> >
> > result = microcode_update_match(patch);
> >
> > - if ( result != NEW_UCODE &&
> > - !(opt_ucode_allow_same && result == SAME_UCODE) )
> > + if ( result == MIS_UCODE )
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> I continue to be in trouble with this change, despite the v3 adjustment
> you make: If this is needed here, why would a similar change not be needed
> for AMD?
Will be fixed in V4
Fouad
>
> Plus the original question remains: Is this actually valid to be changed
> right here? IOW despite the somewhat improved patch description I'm still
> having difficulty identifying which vendor-independent check this is
> redundant with. As opposed to the AMD change further up and ...
>
> > @@ -355,11 +354,10 @@ static struct microcode_patch *cf_check cpu_request_microcode(
> > break;
> >
> > /*
> > - * If the new update covers current CPU, compare updates and store the
> > - * one with higher revision.
> > + * If the microcode covers current CPU, then store its
> > + * revision.
> > */
> > - if ( (microcode_update_match(mc) != MIS_UCODE) &&
> > - (!saved || compare_revisions(saved->rev, mc->rev) == NEW_UCODE) )
> > + if ( (microcode_update_match(mc) != MIS_UCODE) && !saved )
> > saved = mc;
>
> ... this one, where I can see that they are about caching of ucode blobs,
> which looks to be dealt with by cache maintenance logic in
> microcode_update_helper() and microcode_update_cache().
>
> Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-09 14:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-30 12:47 [PATCH v3 0/5] x86/xen-ucode: Introduce --force option Fouad Hilly
2024-04-30 12:47 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] x86: Update x86 low level version check of microcode Fouad Hilly
2024-05-06 8:45 ` Jan Beulich
2024-05-09 14:33 ` Fouad Hilly [this message]
2024-04-30 12:47 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] x86: Refactor microcode_update() hypercall with flags Fouad Hilly
2024-05-06 9:14 ` Jan Beulich
2024-05-09 14:15 ` Fouad Hilly
2024-04-30 12:47 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] x86: Add usage() to print out usage message Fouad Hilly
2024-05-06 8:20 ` Jan Beulich
2024-05-09 13:59 ` Fouad Hilly
2024-04-30 12:47 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] x86: Use getopt to handle command line args Fouad Hilly
2024-05-06 8:21 ` Jan Beulich
2024-05-09 13:59 ` Fouad Hilly
2024-04-30 12:47 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] Add --force option to xen-ucode to override microcode version check Fouad Hilly
2024-05-06 9:39 ` Jan Beulich
2024-05-09 14:31 ` Fouad Hilly
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=CAJKAvHZBmxWCW_rUR9FEY2CkJL8CMw6ByKASukaxE2ubtFY4-g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=fouad.hilly@cloud.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).