Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:18:37 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][v2] x86/microcode/intel: check cpu stepping and
 processor flag before saving microcode
Message-ID: <20201117091837.GA5719@zn.tnic>
References: <20201113015923.13960-1-yu.c.chen@intel.com>
 <20201116122735.GA1131@zn.tnic>
 <20201117022518.GA17555@chenyu-office.sh.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201117022518.GA17555@chenyu-office.sh.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:25:18AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the only place that invokes
> save_mc_for_early() is in generic_load_microcode(). While in
> generic_load_microcode() only microcode has a newer version will be
> saved by checking has_newer_microcode(), and this function leverages
> find_matching_signature() to check if the candidate is of the same
> signature. So when it comes to save_microcode_patch(), the signature
> already matches. In case save_mc_for_early() will be invoked by other
> function in the future, it is okay to add this check too.

The important aspect is that you need to save in intel_ucode_patch
the *exact* patch for the CPU you're running on. The code above that
in save_microcode_patch() adds patches of the same family/model but
*not* same stepping to the microcode cache in case we want to support
mixed-stepping revisions. And those you don't need to check for exact
match.

What I'd like, however, is to get rid of that mixed-stepping support -
which is total nonsense anyway, if you ask me - and that would simplify
the code a *lot* more.

Thx for testing.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette