Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86, amd-ucode: Check UCODE_MAGIC before loading the container file

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@googlemail.com> wrote:

> >From 5183dd763c6dc9f760e29f3313e0ae3dda5228a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:00:54 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] x86, amd-ucode: Check UCODE_MAGIC before loading the container file
> 
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c |    6 ++++++
>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
> index 366baa1..f4c538b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
> @@ -317,6 +317,12 @@ static enum ucode_state request_microcode_fw(int cpu, struct device *device)
>  		return UCODE_NFOUND;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (*(u32 *)firmware->data != UCODE_MAGIC) {
> +		printk(KERN_ERR "microcode: invalid UCODE_MAGIC (0x%08x)\n",
> +		       *(u32 *)firmware->data);
> +		return UCODE_ERROR;
> +	}
> +
>  	ret = generic_load_microcode(cpu, firmware->data, firmware->size);
>  
>  	release_firmware(firmware);

hm, there's no changelog. How was it found, what's the significance, do 
we want it for .32 - i suspect we want - but we need a better changelog 
for that.

Thanks,

	Ingo