From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] x86, amd_ucode: Skip microcode updates for final levels Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:17:52 +0100 Message-ID: <55CA1220.8030209@citrix.com> References: <1438630443-1904-1-git-send-email-aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com> <55CA28720200007800099AAD@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <55CA115A.1050701@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55CA115A.1050701@amd.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Aravind Gopalakrishnan , Jan Beulich Cc: boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, keir@xen.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/08/15 16:14, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote: > On 8/11/2015 9:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 03.08.15 at 21:34, wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_amd.c >>> @@ -347,6 +347,43 @@ static int container_fast_forward(const void >>> *data, size_t size_left, size_t *of >>> return 0; >>> } >>> +/* >>> + * The 'final_levels' of patch ids have been obtained empirically. >>> + * Refer bug https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913996 >>> + * for details of the issue. The short version is that people >>> + * using certain Fam10h systems noticed system hang issues when >>> + * trying to update microcode levels beyond the patch IDs below. >>> + * From internal discussions, we gathered that OS/hypervisor >>> + * cannot reliably perform microcode updates beyond these levels >>> + * due to hardware issues. Therefore, we need to abort microcode >>> + * update process if we hit any of these levels. >>> + */ >>> +static unsigned int final_levels[] = { >> const > > Okay, will fix this. > >>> + 0x01000098, >>> + 0x0100009f, >>> + 0x010000af >>> +}; >>> + >>> +static bool_t check_final_patch_levels(int cpu) >> unsigned int >> > > I can change this too, but- Any specific reason for this? > The other sanity checker or verification functions like > verify_patch_size() or microcode_fits() return a bool_t too.. "int cpu" is the issue (I am guessing), not the return type. ~Andrew