Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231206172844.1756871-1-jannh@google.com> <20231206195814.GDZXDSVgtCWspEJx8Q@fat_crate.local>
In-Reply-To: <20231206195814.GDZXDSVgtCWspEJx8Q@fat_crate.local>
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 21:23:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAG48ez3weAU-Uti0QyBSDNRv8xYqCJ5UbgJvssEWAWpvyon0DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode: Be more verbose, especially about loading errors
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 8:58=E2=80=AFPM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote=
:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:28:44PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > The AMD ucode loader contains several checks for corrupted ucode blobs =
that
> > only log with pr_debug(); make them pr_err(), corrupted ucode blobs are
> > bad.
> >
> > Also make both microcode loaders a bit more verbose about whether they
> > found ucode blobs at all and whether they found ucode for the specific =
CPU.
>
> So far, so good.
>
> The only thing I'm missing here is the *why*.
>
> There's merit in not complaining about corrupted microcode blobs because
> they won't be loaded anyway: no harm, no foul.

Well, yes, except that if no microcode blob is loaded, you're not
gonna have the errata fixes and/or security mitigations that you might
expect to have.