From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751802AbeECKCC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 3 May 2018 06:02:02 -0400
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:54162 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751593AbeECKB5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 3 May 2018 06:01:57 -0400
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 12:01:33 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] x86/microcode/AMD: Check microcode container data
 in the late loader
Message-ID: <20180503100133.GB20023@pd.tnic>
References: <cover.1524515406.git.mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <8f204a953dc4b46477e214ebd291021d7ab6fa6c.1524515406.git.mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <20180430090527.GC6509@pd.tnic>
 <bce73502-0d18-e50c-b78b-8159dc9f8f66@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <20180501084317.GC31863@pd.tnic>
 <e10212ef-c876-4965-6279-967005f53950@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <20180501200308.GC13171@pd.tnic>
 <9cf234e8-4d96-46f0-70e0-7d60d49671d8@maciej.szmigiero.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9cf234e8-4d96-46f0-70e0-7d60d49671d8@maciej.szmigiero.name>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 02:47:39AM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 01.05.2018 22:03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 06:19:56PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> >> -EINVAL cast to unsigned int is 4294967274 and this value is also
> >> a valid count of bytes to skip that this function can return.
> > 
> > And where exactly in the *old* code do we do that?
> 
> The old code returned this value as a signed int, but then any
> "patch_size" value (which is u32) above INT_MAX read from a section header
> wrapped around to a negative pseudo-error code (which likely didn't match
> any actual error number).

Lemme repeat my question: *where* *exactly* in the old code do we do that?

Feel free to paste snippets to show what you mean.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.