Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] x86/microcode/intel: Print when early microcode loading fails

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:32:50AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Well, we have an awful lot of pr_warn()'s in the kernel that talk about
> something that was tried and failed.

Well, is microcode loading failure worth to warn about?

What if there's no microcode for that CPU?

Now imagine in that case you issue a warning and then you get all those
bugzillas opened:

"Heeey, is my CPU broken, it says it cannot load microcode"

I sure don't want to be on the receiving end of this.

I don't think you wanna be there either.

> I actually kinda like the inverse.
> 
> The common (boring) case where an update was needed and was successful.
> It's the one we don't need to tell users about at all.  It barely
> deserves a message.  Users expect that if there's an early update
> available, it'll get attempted, it will be successful and the kernel
> won't say much.

No argument there.

> The time we need to spam dmesg is when something upends user
> expectations and they might need to go do something.  An early loading
> failure is exactly the place where they want to know.  They want to know
> if they're running with known CPU bugs that would have been fixed by the
> early update

No, we already warn about that in the CPU mitigations code.

> or if they somehow have a botched early loading image.

If you can pick apart from this here:

        /* write microcode via MSR 0x79 */
        native_wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_UCODE_WRITE, (unsigned long)mc->bits);

what type of failure it is, then sure, let's warn.

But we should not warn just for every revision mismatch in there...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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