From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>
To: "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] x86/microcode: Do not upload microcode if CPUs are offline
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:07:25 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180228190725.c2yuivmmfiezsict@khazad-dum.debian.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180228132639.GA23235@araj-mobl1.jf.intel.com>
On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:11:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Avoid loading microcode if any of the CPUs are offline, and issue a
> > > warning. Having different microcode revisions on the system at any time
> > > is outright dangerous.
> >
> > Even if we update that microcode during CPU early bring-up, before we
> > mark it on-line and start using it?
> >
> > AFAIK, late-loading or not, this is what should happen in the current
> > code: APs that are brought up after a microcode update is loaded (either
> > by the early or late driver, it doesn't matter) will be always
> > *early-updated* to the new microcode.
> >
> > Is it dangerous to have an offline core at an older microcode revision
> > than the online cores?
>
> We don't want to leave a system and allow the user to update microcode
> when some cpus are offline. Remember cpu_offline in linux is only
> logical offlining.. so the cpu is still in the system.. it can even
> participate in MCE for e.g. It is very much alive. Its not a question
> that "Would it not work" but its not worth to leave an open door and
> being paranoid is best!
I see. Thanks for the explanation!
> > I am not against the patch, mind you, but I am curious about why it is
> > supposed to be dangerous if we're updating the CPUs before we start
> > using them *anyway*.
> >
> > Also, if this is really dangerous, does it means safe CPU hotplug isn't
> > possible? AFAICT, the firmware would have to do it for us, but it
> > *doesn't* have the up-to-date microcode (*we* had to update it)...
>
> The difference is hot-adding you know you are going to update the current
> microcode. But leaving a cpu in offline state is leaving it stale for a long
> time without realizing that you have some stale cores.
That begs the question: do we have any reasons to not update the
microcode even the offline cores?
--
Henrique Holschuh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-28 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-28 10:28 [PATCH 0/7] x86/microcode: Improve late loading Borislav Petkov
2018-02-28 10:28 ` [PATCH 1/7] x86/microcode: Get rid of struct apply_microcode_ctx Borislav Petkov
2018-03-08 9:25 ` [tip:x86/pti] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2018-02-28 10:28 ` [PATCH 2/7] x86/microcode/intel: Check microcode revision before updating sibling threads Borislav Petkov
2018-03-08 9:25 ` [tip:x86/pti] " tip-bot for Ashok Raj
2018-02-28 10:28 ` [PATCH 3/7] x86/microcode/intel: Writeback and invalidate caches before updating microcode Borislav Petkov
2018-03-08 9:26 ` [tip:x86/pti] " tip-bot for Ashok Raj
2018-02-28 10:28 ` [PATCH 4/7] x86/microcode: Do not upload microcode if CPUs are offline Borislav Petkov
2018-02-28 13:11 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2018-02-28 13:26 ` Raj, Ashok
2018-02-28 19:07 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [this message]
2018-03-05 22:06 ` Tom Lendacky
2018-03-08 9:26 ` [tip:x86/pti] " tip-bot for Ashok Raj
2018-02-28 10:28 ` [PATCH 5/7] x86/microcode/intel: Look into the patch cache first Borislav Petkov
2018-03-08 9:27 ` [tip:x86/pti] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2018-02-28 10:28 ` [PATCH 6/7] x86/microcode: Request microcode on the BSP Borislav Petkov
2018-03-05 22:08 ` Tom Lendacky
2018-03-08 9:27 ` [tip:x86/pti] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2018-02-28 10:28 ` [PATCH 7/7] x86/microcode: Synchronize late microcode loading Borislav Petkov
2018-02-28 13:59 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2018-02-28 14:08 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-02-28 17:48 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2018-03-05 22:09 ` Tom Lendacky
2018-03-08 9:28 ` [tip:x86/pti] " tip-bot for Ashok Raj
2018-03-05 22:12 ` [PATCH 0/7] x86/microcode: Improve late loading Tom Lendacky
2018-03-05 23:51 ` Raj, Ashok
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=20180228190725.c2yuivmmfiezsict@khazad-dum.debian.net \
--to=hmh@hmh.eng.br \
--cc=arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).