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 6/7] x86/ucode/intel: Clean up microcode_sanity_check()
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:07:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d6c9685b-e3a1-2837-3123-8fded5418856@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200323101724.15655-7-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
On 23.03.2020 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Rewrite the size checks in a way which which doesn't depend on Xen being
> compiled as 64bit.
One too many "which"?
> Introduce a check missing from the old code, that total_size is a multiple of
> 1024 bytes,
Where is this documented? The rather brief section in SDM vol 3 doesn't
mention anything like this.
> and drop unnecessarily defines/macros/structures.
unnecessary?
> @@ -160,93 +153,69 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(struct cpu_signature *csig)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Sanity check a blob which is expected to be a microcode patch. The 48 byte
> + * header is of a known format, and together with totalsize are within the
> + * bounds of the container. Everything else is unchecked.
> + */
> static int microcode_sanity_check(const struct microcode_intel *mc)
> {
> - const struct microcode_header_intel *mc_header = &mc->hdr;
> - 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;
> -
> - total_size = get_totalsize(mc_header);
> - data_size = get_datasize(mc_header);
> - if ( (data_size + MC_HEADER_SIZE) > total_size )
> - {
> - printk(KERN_ERR "microcode: error! "
> - "Bad data size in microcode data file\n");
> + const struct extended_sigtable *ext;
> + unsigned int total_size = get_totalsize(&mc->hdr);
> + unsigned int data_size = get_datasize(&mc->hdr);
> + unsigned int i, ext_size;
> + uint32_t sum, *ptr;
> +
> + /*
> + * Total size must be a multiple of 1024 bytes. Data size and the header
> + * must fit within it.
> + */
> + if ( (total_size & 1023) ||
Personally I'd fine a hex number easier to recognize in cases like
this.
> + data_size > (total_size - MC_HEADER_SIZE) )
> return -EINVAL;
> - }
>
> - if ( (mc_header->ldrver != 1) || (mc_header->hdrver != 1) )
> - {
Ah - you're dropping this check here altogether. As said on the
earlier patch, I think this may more logically go there.
> - printk(KERN_ERR "microcode: error! "
> - "Unknown microcode update format\n");
While this printk() was already suggested to be moved, I'm not
convinced dropping others further down is helpful in case of
issues. We'd see just -EINVAL with no further indication of
what was (deemed) wrong.
> + /* Checksum the main header and data. */
> + for ( sum = 0, ptr = (uint32_t *)mc;
> + ptr < (uint32_t *)&mc->data[data_size]; ++ptr )
You're casting away constness here which future compilers may
(legitimately) warn about. (Similarly again further down.)
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-25 14:08 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
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 [this message]
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=d6c9685b-e3a1-2837-3123-8fded5418856@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 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).