From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
To: Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@googlemail.com>
Cc: <jacob.w.shin@gmail.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, microcode, AMD: Fix patch level reporting for family15h
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:18:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5244C0C7.80109@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130926230623.GA1764@alberich>
On 9/26/2013 6:06 PM, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:13:22AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:54:32PM -0500, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com wrote:
>>> From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>>>
>>> On AMD family15h, applying microcode patch on the a core (core0)
>>> would also affect the other core (core1) in the same compute unit.
>>> The driver would skip applying the patch on core1, but it still
>>> need to update kernel structures to reflect the proper patch level.
>>>
>>> The current logic is not updating the struct ucode_cpu_info.cpu_sig.rev
>>> of the skipped core. This causes the /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/microcode/version
>>> to report incorrect patch level as shown below:
>>>
>>> [ 10.708841] microcode: CPU0: new patch_level=0x0600063d
>>> [ 10.714256] microcode: CPU1: patch_level=0x06000626
>>> [ 10.719345] microcode: CPU2: patch_level=0x06000626
>>> [ 10.748095] microcode: CPU2: new patch_level=0x0600063d
>>> [ 10.753365] microcode: CPU3: patch_level=0x06000626
>>> [ 10.758264] microcode: CPU4: patch_level=0x06000626
>>> [ 10.786999] microcode: CPU4: new patch_level=0x0600063d
>> Actually, this is collect_cpu_info_amd()'s normal operation and shows
>> that there's no need to apply a microcode patch on the odd core since
>> the even core's ucode has been updated.
> Hmm, I think Boris is right, above messages are just logging what
> happened during µcode update. I think the patch_level in "CPU1:
> patch_level=0x06000626" is based on c->microcode which is updated
> shortly after this message was printed.
>
> I assume with your patch, above message won't look different but just
> the contents in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/microcode/version will
> show the correct version, right?
>
>
> Andreas
>
Yes, the message in dmesg is still showing the same. Only the sysfs...
version is now fixed.
Suravee
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-26 23:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-26 21:54 [PATCH] x86, microcode, AMD: Fix patch level reporting for family15h suravee.suthikulpanit
2013-09-26 22:13 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-09-26 23:06 ` Andreas Herrmann
2013-09-26 23:18 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit [this message]
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=5244C0C7.80109@amd.com \
--to=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=herrmann.der.user@googlemail.com \
--cc=jacob.w.shin@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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