Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 18 Jun 2018 21:56:19 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com>
Cc:     Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, mingo@redhat.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, Srinivas REDDY Eeda <srinivas.eeda@oracle.com>,
        hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Ensure new microcode processor
 flags match with cpu's pf
Message-ID: <20180618195619.GH24921@zn.tnic>
References: <7d20be40-4c15-4e15-a4d0-cd2efda6d701@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7d20be40-4c15-4e15-a4d0-cd2efda6d701@default>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:16:51AM +0000, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> Intel spec says: 'The processor flags in the 48-byte header and the
> processor flags field associated with the extended processor signature
> structures may have multiple bits set.'
> 
> Make sure processor flags of the new microcode intersect with current
> cpu's. Comparing with old microcode's pf can't guarantee this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c |    8 +++-----
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> index 461e315..54f4014 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> @@ -371,12 +371,10 @@ static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)
>  				goto next;
>  
>  		} else {
> -			struct microcode_header_intel *phdr = &patch->hdr;
> -
>  			if (!has_newer_microcode(data,
> -						 phdr->sig,
> -						 phdr->pf,
> -						 phdr->rev))
> +						 uci->cpu_sig.sig,
> +						 uci->cpu_sig.pf,
> +						 patch->hdr.rev))
>  				goto next;
>  		}
>  
> -- 

So I'm scratching my head over this and have no clue what you're trying
to achieve. Is this a fix for a bug you're seeing or what? You'd need to
be a lot more verbose when explaining what this patch is trying to do...

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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