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 S1753136AbcGYRoR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:44:17 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:36124 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752108AbcGYRoO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:44:14 -0400
From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>, 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] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel: don't store initrd's start
References: <20160724150549.2833-1-nicstange@gmail.com>
	<20160725070648.GB24576@nazgul.tnic> <87bn1m5auo.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20160725123643.GE4901@nazgul.tnic> <871t2hkh4w.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20160725134453.GB18535@nazgul.tnic> <87shuxiz06.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20160725164602.GC11976@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 19:44:10 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20160725164602.GC11976@nazgul.tnic> (Borislav Petkov's message
	of "Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:46:02 +0200")
Message-ID: <871t2hd34l.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.95 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> writes:
> Yeah, we should tie this to CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_MEMORY. IOW, here's another
> version, I'll do some more hammering on it tomorrow.

Boots fine and updates microcode (as always, on top of next-20160722).


> It should take care of the builtin case too as there we have the
> microcode in the kernel text mapping which is already relocated when we
> go search for microcode blobs so no need for adjusting start then.

Now that you've got basically the same #ifdefery and if(->valid)'s in
your final result as I did, may I ask whether you would still consider
it as being simpler? In particular, what's the point of having that
->start if it's redundant and has to be corrected in a more or less
hackish way anyway?

Thanks,

Nicolai