Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Ensure new microcode processor flags match with cpu's pf

[Borislav Petkov]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  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.