All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	"Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>, "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/7] x86/ucode/intel: Reimplement get_{data, total}size() helpers
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:56:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <83909134-8bd7-b1b2-40f7-040dd00cc517@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eabacc07-ef92-0839-798b-ffee123f4f89@citrix.com>

On 26.03.2020 15:35, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 25/03/2020 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 23.03.2020 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/intel.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/intel.c
>>> @@ -46,9 +46,16 @@ struct microcode_header_intel {
>>>      unsigned int sig;
>>>      unsigned int cksum;
>>>      unsigned int ldrver;
>>> +
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * Microcode for the Pentium Pro and II had all further fields in the
>>> +     * header reserved, had a fixed datasize of 2000 and totalsize of 2048,
>>> +     * and didn't use platform flags despite the availability of the MSR.
>>> +     */
>>> +
>>>      unsigned int pf;
>>> -    unsigned int datasize;
>>> -    unsigned int totalsize;
>>> +    unsigned int _datasize;
>>> +    unsigned int _totalsize;
>> ... the underscores here dropped again. Or else - why did you add
>> them? This (to me at least) doesn't e.g. make any more clear that
>> the fields may be zero on old hardware.
> 
> No, but it is our normal hint that you shouldn't be using the field
> directly, and should be using the accessors instead.

Yet in patch 5 you do. Perhaps for an understandable reason, but
that way you at least partly invalidate what you say above.

>> Furthermore - do we really need this PPro/PentiumII logic seeing
>> that these aren't 64-bit capable CPUs?
> 
> I did actually drop support in one version of my series, but put it back in.
> 
> These old microcode blobs are still around, including in some versions
> of microcode.dat.  By dropping the ability to recognise them as
> legitimate, we'd break the logic to search through a container of
> multiple blobs to find the one which matches.

Oh, good point.

Jan


  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-26 14:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-23 10:17 [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/7] x86/ucode: Cleanup and fixes - Part 3/n (Intel) Andrew Cooper
2020-03-23 10:17 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/7] x86/ucode: Document the behaviour of the microcode_ops hooks Andrew Cooper
2020-03-23 12:33   ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-23 13:26     ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-23 14:24       ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-23 10:17 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/7] x86/ucode/intel: Adjust microcode_sanity_check() to not take void * Andrew Cooper
2020-03-25 13:23   ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-23 10:17 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/7] x86/ucode/intel: Remove gratuitous memory allocations from cpu_request_microcode() Andrew Cooper
2020-03-25 13:34   ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-23 10:17 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/7] x86/ucode/intel: Reimplement get_{data, total}size() helpers Andrew Cooper
2020-03-25 13:41   ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-26 14:35     ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-26 14:56       ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2020-03-26 15:09         ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-26 15:19           ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-23 10:17 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/7] x86/ucode/intel: Clean up microcode_update_match() Andrew Cooper
2020-03-25 13:51   ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-26 14:36     ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-23 10:17 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/7] x86/ucode/intel: Clean up microcode_sanity_check() Andrew Cooper
2020-03-25 14:07   ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-26 14:41     ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-26 15:02       ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-23 10:17 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 7/7] x86/ucode/intel: Fold structures together Andrew Cooper
2020-03-25 14:16   ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-25 14:32     ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-26 12:24       ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-26 14:50         ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-26 15:05           ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-27 12:40             ` Andrew Cooper

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=83909134-8bd7-b1b2-40f7-040dd00cc517@suse.com \
    --to=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=wl@xen.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.