2020-04-19 16:43:41

by Evalds Iodzevics

Subject: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU: Add native CPUID variants returning a single datum

From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>

... similarly to the cpuid_<reg>() variants.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
index cac54e61c299..048942d53988 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
@@ -212,6 +212,24 @@ static inline void native_cpuid(unsigned int *eax, unsigned int *ebx,
: "memory");
}

+#define native_cpuid_reg(reg) \
+static inline unsigned int native_cpuid_##reg(unsigned int op) \
+{ \
+ unsigned int eax = op, ebx, ecx = 0, edx; \
+ \
+ native_cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); \
+ \
+ return reg; \
+}
+
+/*
+ * Native CPUID functions returning a single datum.
+ */
+native_cpuid_reg(eax)
+native_cpuid_reg(ebx)
+native_cpuid_reg(ecx)
+native_cpuid_reg(edx)
+
static inline void load_cr3(pgd_t *pgdir)
{
write_cr3(__pa(pgdir));
--
2.17.4

2020-04-19 16:56:14

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU: Add native CPUID variants returning a single datum

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 07:29:42PM +0300, Evalds Iodzevics wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
>
> ... similarly to the cpuid_<reg>() variants.
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)

Why are you resending patches from someone else?

2020-04-19 17:28:55

by Evalds Iodzevics

Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Fixed broken microcode early loading on 32 bit platforms because it always jumps past cpuid in sync_core() as data structure boot_cpu_data are not populated so early in boot. This is for 4.4. Should be done for 4.9 too

---
arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h
index 90343ba50485..92ce9c8a508b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static inline u32 intel_get_microcode_revision(void)
native_wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_UCODE_REV, 0);

/* As documented in the SDM: Do a CPUID 1 here */
- sync_core();
+ native_cpuid_eax(1);

/* get the current revision from MSR 0x8B */
native_rdmsr(MSR_IA32_UCODE_REV, dummy, rev);
--
2.17.4

2020-04-20 05:54:27

by Evalds Iodzevics

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU: Add native CPUID variants returning a single datum

The second patch depends on this commit by Borislav so i included
this, probably I should have just mentioned it in my comment?

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 7:54 PM Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 07:29:42PM +0300, Evalds Iodzevics wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> >
> > ... similarly to the cpuid_<reg>() variants.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> Why are you resending patches from someone else?

2020-04-20 06:09:00

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/CPU: Add native CPUID variants returning a single datum

A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post
Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 08:52:53AM +0300, Evalds Iodzevics wrote:
> The second patch depends on this commit by Borislav so i included
> this, probably I should have just mentioned it in my comment?

I really do not understand this sentence at all. I have no context as
to what you are trying to do.

greg k-h