[Part 2 v2[cleanup] 4/4] x86/microcode: Do not call apply_microde() on sibling threads

Ashok Raj posted 1 patch 2 years, 7 months ago
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
[Part 2 v2[cleanup] 4/4] x86/microcode: Do not call apply_microde() on sibling threads
Posted by Ashok Raj 2 years, 7 months ago
Microcode updates are applied at the core, and both threads of HT siblings
will notice the update.

During late-load, after the primary has updated the microcode, it also
reflects that in the per-cpu structure (cpuinfo_x86) holding the current
revision.

Since the sibling hasn't had a chance to update the per-cpu revision,
the current code calls apply_microcode() just as a way to verify and also
update the per-cpu revision number.

But in the odd case when primary returned with an error, the secondary will
try to perform a patchload and the primary has already been released to the
system. This could be problematic.

Replace apply_microcode() with a call to collect_cpu_info() and let that
call also update the per-cpu structure instead of returning the previously
cached values.

Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
Cc: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner (Intel) <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc: Stefan Talpalaru <stefantalpalaru@yahoo.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zilstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc: Martin Pohlack <mpohlack@amazon.de>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
index 6ade3d59c404..089636b1643f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
@@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ static int __wait_for_cpus(atomic_t *t, long long timeout)
  */
 static int __reload_late(void *info)
 {
+	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
 	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
 	enum ucode_state err;
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -422,12 +423,11 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info)
 
 	/*
 	 * At least one thread has completed update on each core.
-	 * For others, simply call the update to make sure the
-	 * per-cpu cpuinfo can be updated with right microcode
-	 * revision.
+	 * For siblings, collect the cpuinfo and update the
+	 * per-cpu cpuinfo with the current microcode revision.
 	 */
 	if (cpumask_first(topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)) != cpu)
-		err = microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu);
+		microcode_ops->collect_cpu_info(cpu, &uci->cpu_sig);
 
 	return ret;
 }
-- 
2.34.1
Re: [Part 2 v2[cleanup] 4/4] x86/microcode: Do not call apply_microde() on sibling threads
Posted by Ashok Raj 2 years, 7 months ago
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 01:35:12PM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:

[snip]

> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
> index 6ade3d59c404..089636b1643f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
> @@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ static int __wait_for_cpus(atomic_t *t, long long timeout)
>   */
>  static int __reload_late(void *info)
>  {
> +	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;

In a quest to keep the christmas tree effect, screwed up the ordering. 
I fixed it before i resent the next time. Modified diff below.

>  	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  	enum ucode_state err;
>  	int ret = 0;
> @@ -422,12 +423,11 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info)
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * At least one thread has completed update on each core.
> -	 * For others, simply call the update to make sure the
> -	 * per-cpu cpuinfo can be updated with right microcode
> -	 * revision.
> +	 * For siblings, collect the cpuinfo and update the
> +	 * per-cpu cpuinfo with the current microcode revision.
>  	 */
>  	if (cpumask_first(topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)) != cpu)
> -		err = microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu);
> +		microcode_ops->collect_cpu_info(cpu, &uci->cpu_sig);
>  
>  	return ret;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
index 6ade3d59c404..07764c1a2dd3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
@@ -387,6 +387,7 @@ static int __wait_for_cpus(atomic_t *t, long long timeout)
 static int __reload_late(void *info)
 {
        int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+       struct ucode_cpu_info *uci;
        enum ucode_state err;
        int ret = 0;

@@ -422,12 +423,13 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info)

        /*
         * At least one thread has completed update on each core.
-        * For others, simply call the update to make sure the
-        * per-cpu cpuinfo can be updated with right microcode
-        * revision.
+        * For siblings, collect the cpuinfo and update the
+        * per-cpu cpuinfo with the current microcode revision.
         */
-       if (cpumask_first(topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)) != cpu)
-               err = microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu);
+       if (cpumask_first(topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)) != cpu) {
+               uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
+               microcode_ops->collect_cpu_info(cpu, &uci->cpu_sig);
+       }

        return ret;
 }