For Zen3-5 microcode blobs signed with the updated signature scheme, the
checksum field has been reused to be a min_revision field, referring to the
microcode revision which fixed Entrysign (SB-7033, CVE-2024-36347).
Cross-check this when trying to load microcode, but allow --force to override
it. If the signature scheme is genuinely different, a #GP will occur.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
---
CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
---
xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/amd.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/amd.c b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/amd.c
index 7ff702c06caf..30bddc89da0a 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/amd.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/amd.c
@@ -42,7 +42,10 @@ struct microcode_patch {
uint8_t mc_patch_data_id[2];
uint8_t mc_patch_data_len;
uint8_t init_flag;
- uint32_t mc_patch_data_checksum;
+ union {
+ uint32_t checksum; /* Fam12h and earlier */
+ uint32_t min_rev; /* Zen3-5, post Entrysign */
+ };
uint32_t nb_dev_id;
uint32_t sb_dev_id;
uint16_t processor_rev_id;
@@ -270,6 +273,41 @@ static int cf_check amd_compare(
return compare_revisions(old->patch_id, new->patch_id);
}
+/*
+ * Check whether this patch has a minimum revision given, and whether the
+ * condition is satisfied.
+ *
+ * In linux-firmware, blobs signed with the updated signature algorithm have
+ * reused the checksum field as a min-revision field. From public archives,
+ * the checksum field appears to have been unused since Fam12h.
+ *
+ * Returns false if there is a min revision given, and it suggests that that
+ * the patch cannot be loaded on the current system. True otherwise.
+ */
+static bool check_min_rev(const struct microcode_patch *patch)
+{
+ ASSERT(microcode_fits_cpu(patch));
+
+ if ( patch->processor_rev_id < 0xa000 || /* pre Zen3? */
+ patch->min_rev == 0 ) /* No min rev specified */
+ return true;
+
+ /*
+ * Sanity check, as this is a reused field. If this is a true
+ * min_revision field, it will differ only in the bottom byte from the
+ * patch_id. Otherwise, it's probably a checksum.
+ */
+ if ( (patch->patch_id ^ patch->min_rev) & ~0xff )
+ {
+ printk(XENLOG_WARNING
+ "microcode: patch %#x has unexpected min_rev %#x\n",
+ patch->patch_id, patch->min_rev);
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return this_cpu(cpu_sig).rev >= patch->min_rev;
+}
+
static int cf_check apply_microcode(const struct microcode_patch *patch,
unsigned int flags)
{
@@ -299,6 +337,14 @@ static int cf_check apply_microcode(const struct microcode_patch *patch,
return -ENXIO;
}
+ if ( !ucode_force && !check_min_rev(patch) )
+ {
+ printk(XENLOG_ERR
+ "microcode: CPU%u current rev %#x below patch min_rev %#x\n",
+ cpu, sig->rev, patch->min_rev);
+ return -ENXIO;
+ }
+
hw_err = wrmsr_safe(MSR_AMD_PATCHLOADER, (unsigned long)patch);
/* get patch id after patching */
--
2.39.5
On 20.10.2025 15:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: > For Zen3-5 microcode blobs signed with the updated signature scheme, the > checksum field has been reused to be a min_revision field, referring to the > microcode revision which fixed Entrysign (SB-7033, CVE-2024-36347). > > Cross-check this when trying to load microcode, but allow --force to override > it. If the signature scheme is genuinely different, a #GP will occur. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> Might be upgradable to R-b if only I knew where - if anywhere - this is documented. I can't spot anything in PM vol 2 in particular. Jan
On 21/10/2025 10:18 am, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.10.2025 15:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> For Zen3-5 microcode blobs signed with the updated signature scheme, the >> checksum field has been reused to be a min_revision field, referring to the >> microcode revision which fixed Entrysign (SB-7033, CVE-2024-36347). >> >> Cross-check this when trying to load microcode, but allow --force to override >> it. If the signature scheme is genuinely different, a #GP will occur. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> Thanks. > > Might be upgradable to R-b if only I knew where - if anywhere - this is > documented. I can't spot anything in PM vol 2 in particular. Like everything else about the ucode format, It's not documented at all. In fact, this was discovered by people on the WinRaid forums, because even https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/commit/amd-ucode?id=3768c184de68a85b9df6697e7f93a2f61de90a99 doesn't say that the internal headers have been adjusted. I've confirmed with AMD that it's intentional and expected to continue like this for the lifetime of the Zen3-5 blobs. ~Andrew
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.