to a more generic function. So that it can be used alone to check
an update against the CPU signature and current update revision.
Note that enum microcode_match_result will be used in common code
(aka microcode.c), it has been placed in the common header. And
constifying the parameter of microcode_sanity_check() such that it
can be called by microcode_update_match().
Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
---
Changes in v10:
- Drop RBs
- assert that microcode passed to microcode_update_match() would pass
sanity check. Constify the parameter of microcode_sanity_check()
Changes in v9:
- microcode_update_match() doesn't accept (sig, pf, rev) any longer.
Hence, it won't be used to compare two arbitrary updates.
- rewrite patch description
Changes in v8:
- make sure enough room for an extended header and signature array
Changes in v6:
- eliminate unnecessary type casting in microcode_update_match
- check if a patch has an extend header
Changes in v5:
- constify the extended_signature
- use named enum type for the return value of microcode_update_match
---
xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
xen/include/asm-x86/microcode.h | 6 ++++
2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
index 22fdeca..1a3ffa5 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
@@ -134,21 +134,11 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig)
return 0;
}
-static inline int microcode_update_match(
- unsigned int cpu_num, const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
- int sig, int pf)
+static int microcode_sanity_check(const void *mc)
{
- struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = &per_cpu(ucode_cpu_info, cpu_num);
-
- return (sigmatch(sig, uci->cpu_sig.sig, pf, uci->cpu_sig.pf) &&
- (mc_header->rev > uci->cpu_sig.rev));
-}
-
-static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc)
-{
- struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = mc;
- struct extended_sigtable *ext_header = NULL;
- struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
+ const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = mc;
+ const struct extended_sigtable *ext_header = NULL;
+ const struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
unsigned long total_size, data_size, ext_table_size;
unsigned int ext_sigcount = 0, i;
uint32_t sum, orig_sum;
@@ -234,6 +224,42 @@ static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc)
return 0;
}
+/* Check an update against the CPU signature and current update revision */
+static enum microcode_match_result microcode_update_match(
+ const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header, unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ const struct extended_sigtable *ext_header;
+ const struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
+ unsigned int i;
+ struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = &per_cpu(ucode_cpu_info, cpu);
+ unsigned int sig = uci->cpu_sig.sig;
+ unsigned int pf = uci->cpu_sig.pf;
+ unsigned int rev = uci->cpu_sig.rev;
+ unsigned long data_size = get_datasize(mc_header);
+ const void *end = (const void *)mc_header + get_totalsize(mc_header);
+
+ ASSERT(!microcode_sanity_check(mc_header));
+ if ( sigmatch(sig, mc_header->sig, pf, mc_header->pf) )
+ return (mc_header->rev > rev) ? NEW_UCODE : OLD_UCODE;
+
+ ext_header = (const void *)(mc_header + 1) + data_size;
+ ext_sig = (const void *)(ext_header + 1);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure there is enough space to hold an extended header and enough
+ * array elements.
+ */
+ if ( (end < (const void *)ext_sig) ||
+ (end < (const void *)(ext_sig + ext_header->count)) )
+ return MIS_UCODE;
+
+ for ( i = 0; i < ext_header->count; i++ )
+ if ( sigmatch(sig, ext_sig[i].sig, pf, ext_sig[i].pf) )
+ return (mc_header->rev > rev) ? NEW_UCODE : OLD_UCODE;
+
+ return MIS_UCODE;
+}
+
/*
* return 0 - no update found
* return 1 - found update
@@ -243,31 +269,12 @@ static int get_matching_microcode(const void *mc, unsigned int cpu)
{
struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = &per_cpu(ucode_cpu_info, cpu);
const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = mc;
- const struct extended_sigtable *ext_header;
unsigned long total_size = get_totalsize(mc_header);
- int ext_sigcount, i;
- struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
void *new_mc;
- if ( microcode_update_match(cpu, mc_header,
- mc_header->sig, mc_header->pf) )
- goto find;
-
- if ( total_size <= (get_datasize(mc_header) + MC_HEADER_SIZE) )
+ if ( microcode_update_match(mc, cpu) != NEW_UCODE )
return 0;
- ext_header = mc + get_datasize(mc_header) + MC_HEADER_SIZE;
- ext_sigcount = ext_header->count;
- ext_sig = (void *)ext_header + EXT_HEADER_SIZE;
- for ( i = 0; i < ext_sigcount; i++ )
- {
- if ( microcode_update_match(cpu, mc_header,
- ext_sig->sig, ext_sig->pf) )
- goto find;
- ext_sig++;
- }
- return 0;
- find:
pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d found a matching microcode update with"
" version %#x (current=%#x)\n",
cpu, mc_header->rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev);
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/microcode.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/microcode.h
index 23ea954..882f560 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/microcode.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/microcode.h
@@ -3,6 +3,12 @@
#include <xen/percpu.h>
+enum microcode_match_result {
+ OLD_UCODE, /* signature matched, but revision id is older or equal */
+ NEW_UCODE, /* signature matched, but revision id is newer */
+ MIS_UCODE, /* signature mismatched */
+};
+
struct cpu_signature;
struct ucode_cpu_info;
--
1.8.3.1
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 12.09.2019 09:22, Chao Gao wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
> @@ -134,21 +134,11 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static inline int microcode_update_match(
> - unsigned int cpu_num, const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
> - int sig, int pf)
> +static int microcode_sanity_check(const void *mc)
> {
> - struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = &per_cpu(ucode_cpu_info, cpu_num);
> -
> - return (sigmatch(sig, uci->cpu_sig.sig, pf, uci->cpu_sig.pf) &&
> - (mc_header->rev > uci->cpu_sig.rev));
> -}
> -
> -static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc)
> -{
> - struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = mc;
> - struct extended_sigtable *ext_header = NULL;
> - struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
> + const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = mc;
> + const struct extended_sigtable *ext_header = NULL;
> + const struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
> unsigned long total_size, data_size, ext_table_size;
> unsigned int ext_sigcount = 0, i;
> uint32_t sum, orig_sum;
> @@ -234,6 +224,42 @@ static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/* Check an update against the CPU signature and current update revision */
> +static enum microcode_match_result microcode_update_match(
> + const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header, unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + const struct extended_sigtable *ext_header;
> + const struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
> + unsigned int i;
> + struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = &per_cpu(ucode_cpu_info, cpu);
> + unsigned int sig = uci->cpu_sig.sig;
> + unsigned int pf = uci->cpu_sig.pf;
> + unsigned int rev = uci->cpu_sig.rev;
> + unsigned long data_size = get_datasize(mc_header);
> + const void *end = (const void *)mc_header + get_totalsize(mc_header);
> +
> + ASSERT(!microcode_sanity_check(mc_header));
> + if ( sigmatch(sig, mc_header->sig, pf, mc_header->pf) )
> + return (mc_header->rev > rev) ? NEW_UCODE : OLD_UCODE;
> +
> + ext_header = (const void *)(mc_header + 1) + data_size;
> + ext_sig = (const void *)(ext_header + 1);
> +
> + /*
> + * Make sure there is enough space to hold an extended header and enough
> + * array elements.
> + */
> + if ( (end < (const void *)ext_sig) ||
> + (end < (const void *)(ext_sig + ext_header->count)) )
> + return MIS_UCODE;
With you now assuming that the blob has previously passed
microcode_sanity_check(), this only needs to be
if ( (end <= (const void *)ext_sig) )
return MIS_UCODE;
now afaict.
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
preferably with this adjustment (assuming you agree).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 12.09.2019 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.09.2019 09:22, Chao Gao wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
>> @@ -134,21 +134,11 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static inline int microcode_update_match(
>> - unsigned int cpu_num, const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
>> - int sig, int pf)
>> +static int microcode_sanity_check(const void *mc)
>> {
>> - struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = &per_cpu(ucode_cpu_info, cpu_num);
>> -
>> - return (sigmatch(sig, uci->cpu_sig.sig, pf, uci->cpu_sig.pf) &&
>> - (mc_header->rev > uci->cpu_sig.rev));
>> -}
>> -
>> -static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc)
>> -{
>> - struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = mc;
>> - struct extended_sigtable *ext_header = NULL;
>> - struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
>> + const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = mc;
>> + const struct extended_sigtable *ext_header = NULL;
>> + const struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
>> unsigned long total_size, data_size, ext_table_size;
>> unsigned int ext_sigcount = 0, i;
>> uint32_t sum, orig_sum;
>> @@ -234,6 +224,42 @@ static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +/* Check an update against the CPU signature and current update revision */
>> +static enum microcode_match_result microcode_update_match(
>> + const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header, unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> + const struct extended_sigtable *ext_header;
>> + const struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
>> + unsigned int i;
>> + struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = &per_cpu(ucode_cpu_info, cpu);
>> + unsigned int sig = uci->cpu_sig.sig;
>> + unsigned int pf = uci->cpu_sig.pf;
>> + unsigned int rev = uci->cpu_sig.rev;
>> + unsigned long data_size = get_datasize(mc_header);
>> + const void *end = (const void *)mc_header + get_totalsize(mc_header);
>> +
>> + ASSERT(!microcode_sanity_check(mc_header));
>> + if ( sigmatch(sig, mc_header->sig, pf, mc_header->pf) )
>> + return (mc_header->rev > rev) ? NEW_UCODE : OLD_UCODE;
>> +
>> + ext_header = (const void *)(mc_header + 1) + data_size;
>> + ext_sig = (const void *)(ext_header + 1);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Make sure there is enough space to hold an extended header and enough
>> + * array elements.
>> + */
>> + if ( (end < (const void *)ext_sig) ||
>> + (end < (const void *)(ext_sig + ext_header->count)) )
>> + return MIS_UCODE;
>
> With you now assuming that the blob has previously passed
> microcode_sanity_check(), this only needs to be
>
> if ( (end <= (const void *)ext_sig) )
> return MIS_UCODE;
>
> now afaict.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> preferably with this adjustment (assuming you agree).
FAOD: I'd be happy to make the adjustment while committing, but
I'd like to have your consent (or you proving me wrong). This
would, as it looks, allow everything up to patch 8 to go in.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:50:59AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>On 12.09.2019 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.09.2019 09:22, Chao Gao wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/microcode_intel.c
>>> @@ -134,21 +134,11 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static inline int microcode_update_match(
>>> - unsigned int cpu_num, const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header,
>>> - int sig, int pf)
>>> +static int microcode_sanity_check(const void *mc)
>>> {
>>> - struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = &per_cpu(ucode_cpu_info, cpu_num);
>>> -
>>> - return (sigmatch(sig, uci->cpu_sig.sig, pf, uci->cpu_sig.pf) &&
>>> - (mc_header->rev > uci->cpu_sig.rev));
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> -static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc)
>>> -{
>>> - struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = mc;
>>> - struct extended_sigtable *ext_header = NULL;
>>> - struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
>>> + const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = mc;
>>> + const struct extended_sigtable *ext_header = NULL;
>>> + const struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
>>> unsigned long total_size, data_size, ext_table_size;
>>> unsigned int ext_sigcount = 0, i;
>>> uint32_t sum, orig_sum;
>>> @@ -234,6 +224,42 @@ static int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/* Check an update against the CPU signature and current update revision */
>>> +static enum microcode_match_result microcode_update_match(
>>> + const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header, unsigned int cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + const struct extended_sigtable *ext_header;
>>> + const struct extended_signature *ext_sig;
>>> + unsigned int i;
>>> + struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = &per_cpu(ucode_cpu_info, cpu);
>>> + unsigned int sig = uci->cpu_sig.sig;
>>> + unsigned int pf = uci->cpu_sig.pf;
>>> + unsigned int rev = uci->cpu_sig.rev;
>>> + unsigned long data_size = get_datasize(mc_header);
>>> + const void *end = (const void *)mc_header + get_totalsize(mc_header);
>>> +
>>> + ASSERT(!microcode_sanity_check(mc_header));
>>> + if ( sigmatch(sig, mc_header->sig, pf, mc_header->pf) )
>>> + return (mc_header->rev > rev) ? NEW_UCODE : OLD_UCODE;
>>> +
>>> + ext_header = (const void *)(mc_header + 1) + data_size;
>>> + ext_sig = (const void *)(ext_header + 1);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Make sure there is enough space to hold an extended header and enough
>>> + * array elements.
>>> + */
>>> + if ( (end < (const void *)ext_sig) ||
>>> + (end < (const void *)(ext_sig + ext_header->count)) )
>>> + return MIS_UCODE;
>>
>> With you now assuming that the blob has previously passed
>> microcode_sanity_check(), this only needs to be
>>
>> if ( (end <= (const void *)ext_sig) )
>> return MIS_UCODE;
>>
>> now afaict.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> preferably with this adjustment (assuming you agree).
>
>FAOD: I'd be happy to make the adjustment while committing, but
>I'd like to have your consent (or you proving me wrong). This
>would, as it looks, allow everything up to patch 8 to go in.
Please go ahead. Thanks
Chao
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.