Hey Boris,
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:30:02PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:53:04AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:would you do the honor and write a proper patch? You found the bug so...
Alternatively, we could return an error (-EINVAL?) fromYeah, this should be the right fix.
microcode_init() when either of these two conditions is true.
James, does that fix your issue? (It should.)
---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
index 15c29096136b..36a83617eb21 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
@@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ static int __init microcode_init(void)
int error;
if (paravirt_enabled() || dis_ucode_ldr)
- return 0;
+ return -EINVAL;
if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
microcode_ops = init_intel_microcode();
:-D