Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 00:29:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 28/30] x86/microcode: Handle "offline" CPUs correctly
Message-ID: <20230810222957.GJ212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230810153317.850017756@linutronix.de>
 <20230810160806.562016788@linutronix.de>
 <20230810204605.GF212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ZNVNibrpZ9bJLok7@araj-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20230810210511.GH212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ZNVbc7qy8k49Dwhi@araj-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZNVbc7qy8k49Dwhi@araj-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 02:49:39PM -0700, Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 11:05:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:46:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 08:38:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >  	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpu_present_mask, &cpus_booted_once_mask) {
> > > > > +		/*
> > > > > +		 * Offline CPUs sit in one of the play_dead() functions
> > > > > +		 * with interrupts disabled, but they still react on NMIs
> > > > > +		 * and execute arbitrary code. Also MWAIT being updated
> > > > > +		 * while the offline CPU sits there is not necessarily safe
> > > > > +		 * on all CPU variants.
> > > > > +		 *
> > > > > +		 * Mark them in the offline_cpus mask which will be handled
> > > > > +		 * by CPU0 later in the update process.
> > > > > +		 *
> > > > > +		 * Ensure that the primary thread is online so that it is
> > > > > +		 * guaranteed that all cores are updated.
> > > > > +		 */
> > > > >  		if (!cpu_online(cpu)) {
> > > > > +			if (topology_is_primary_thread(cpu) || !allow_smt_offline) {
> > > > > +				pr_err("CPU %u not online, loading aborted\n", cpu);
> > > > 
> > > > We could make the NMI handler do the ucode load, no? Also, you just need
> > > > any thread online, don't particularly care about primary thread or not
> > > > afaict.
> > > 
> > > Patch 25 does that load in NMI. You are right, we just need "a" CPU in each
> > > core online. 
> > 
> > Patch 25 does it for online CPUs, offline CPUs are having a separate
> > code path:
> > 
> >   microcode_nmi_handler()
> > 
> > vs
> > 
> >   microcode_offline_nmi_handler()
> 
> Since the code enforces all primary CPUs to be ONLINE, the secondaries are the
> other thread of the same core. So they automatically get the update when
> primary does it. 
> 
> The secondaries are parked in NMI just to avoid the risk of executing code
> that might be patched by primary.
> 
> Or maybe you had something else in mind. 

Yeah, not placing constraints on who is online at all. Also, if both
siblings are offline, then onlining will re-load ucode anyway, no?