From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Stefan Talpalaru <stefantalpalaru@yahoo.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
"Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Peter Zilstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
Martin Pohlack <mpohlack@amazon.de>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 Part2 1/9] x86/microcode: Taint kernel only if microcode loading was successful
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 08:51:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9lHDWjjnqdletL3@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y9kAlKFfdek2rq6g@zn.tnic>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 12:50:44PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 01:39:47PM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> Why all this hoopla and unrelated changes?
>
> Why don't you simply hoist the call to ->request_microcode_fw outside of
> the locked region as it doesn't have to be there and then do the usual
> pattern?
Makes total sense, and seems to make the code more readable. Thanks!
Just some minor changes below.
remove ret = 0 during initialization since its cleared right below. (tglx)
Some more below, updated patch at the end.
I have tested with the modified patch below.
>
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
> index 14a2280fdcd2..23f4f22df581 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
> @@ -481,28 +481,28 @@ static ssize_t reload_store(struct device *dev,
> if (val != 1)
> return size;
>
> + tmp_ret = microcode_ops->request_microcode_fw(bsp, µcode_pdev->dev);
> + if (tmp_ret != UCODE_NEW)
> + return ret;
> +
> cpus_read_lock();
>
> ret = check_online_cpus();
> if (ret)
> - goto put;
> -
> - tmp_ret = microcode_ops->request_microcode_fw(bsp, µcode_pdev->dev);
> - if (tmp_ret != UCODE_NEW)
> - goto put;
> + goto unlock;
Need to set ret explicitly to either -EINVAL, or size. Otherwise it will be
endlessly waiting for write to complete. (As Aubrey pointed out)
>
> mutex_lock(µcode_mutex);
> ret = microcode_reload_late();
I think its safe to leave ret as is, since microcode_reload_late() only
returns -1, or 0.
> mutex_unlock(µcode_mutex);
>
> -put:
> - cpus_read_unlock();
> -
> if (ret == 0)
> ret = size;
>
> add_taint(TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
Pull this into the ret == 0, so taint only if the update was successful?
And add a message so its not silent?
>
> +unlock:
> + cpus_read_unlock();
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
>
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
index 94d942c1bf2c..550b7c566311 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
@@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ static ssize_t reload_store(struct device *dev,
enum ucode_state tmp_ret = UCODE_OK;
int bsp = boot_cpu_data.cpu_index;
unsigned long val;
- ssize_t ret = 0;
+ ssize_t ret;
ret = kstrtoul(buf, 0, &val);
if (ret)
@@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ static ssize_t reload_store(struct device *dev,
tmp_ret = microcode_ops->request_microcode_fw(bsp, µcode_pdev->dev);
if (tmp_ret != UCODE_NEW)
- return ret;
+ return (tmp_ret == UCODE_ERROR ? -EINVAL : size);
cpus_read_lock();
@@ -495,10 +495,11 @@ static ssize_t reload_store(struct device *dev,
ret = microcode_reload_late();
mutex_unlock(µcode_mutex);
- if (ret == 0)
+ if (ret == 0) {
ret = size;
-
- add_taint(TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
+ add_taint(TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
+ pr_warn("Microcode late loading tainted the kernel\n");
+ }
unlock:
cpus_read_unlock();
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-31 16:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-30 21:39 [Patch v3 Part2 0/9] x86/microcode: Declare microcode safe for late loading Ashok Raj
2023-01-30 21:39 ` [Patch v3 Part2 1/9] x86/microcode: Taint kernel only if microcode loading was successful Ashok Raj
2023-01-31 11:50 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-01-31 16:51 ` Ashok Raj [this message]
2023-01-31 20:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-01-31 22:54 ` Ashok Raj
2023-02-01 12:44 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-02-01 15:42 ` Ashok Raj
2023-02-01 21:47 ` Ashok Raj
2023-02-01 22:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-02-01 22:19 ` Ashok Raj
2023-02-01 22:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-01-31 12:17 ` Li, Aubrey
2023-01-31 15:32 ` Ashok Raj
2023-01-30 21:39 ` [Patch v3 Part2 2/9] x86/microcode: Report invalid writes to reload sysfs file Ashok Raj
2023-01-31 15:57 ` [tip: x86/microcode] x86/microcode: Allow only "1" as a late reload trigger value tip-bot2 for Ashok Raj
2023-01-30 21:39 ` [Patch v3 Part2 3/9] x86/microcode/intel: Fix collect_cpu_info() to reflect current microcode Ashok Raj
2023-01-31 16:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-01-31 17:34 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-31 17:41 ` Ashok Raj
2023-01-31 20:40 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-01-31 20:49 ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-31 21:08 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-01-31 22:32 ` Ashok Raj
2023-01-31 22:43 ` Luck, Tony
2023-02-01 12:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-02-01 15:13 ` Ashok Raj
2023-02-01 15:25 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-02-01 16:15 ` Luck, Tony
2023-02-01 19:13 ` Dave Hansen
2023-02-01 19:32 ` Ashok Raj
2023-01-30 21:39 ` [Patch v3 Part2 4/9] x86/microcode: Do not call apply_microcode() on sibling threads Ashok Raj
2023-02-01 22:21 ` Dave Hansen
2023-02-01 22:40 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-02-02 2:51 ` Ashok Raj
2023-02-02 9:40 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-02-02 16:34 ` Ashok Raj
2023-01-30 21:39 ` [Patch v3 Part2 5/9] x86/microcode: Move late load warning to the same function that taints kernel Ashok Raj
2023-01-30 21:39 ` [Patch v3 Part2 6/9] x86/microcode/intel: Add minimum required revision to microcode header Ashok Raj
2023-01-30 21:39 ` [Patch v3 Part2 7/9] x86/microcode: Add a generic mechanism to declare support for minrev Ashok Raj
2023-01-30 21:39 ` [Patch v3 Part2 8/9] x86/microcode/intel: Drop wbinvd() from microcode loading Ashok Raj
2023-01-30 21:39 ` [Patch v3 Part2 9/9] x86/microcode: Provide an option to override minrev enforcement Ashok Raj
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=Y9lHDWjjnqdletL3@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com \
--to=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@intel.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpohlack@amazon.de \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=stefantalpalaru@yahoo.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@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