[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86: Refactor microcode_update() hypercall with flags field


  • To: Fouad Hilly <fouad.hilly@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:16:52 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 09:16:59 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 05.04.2024 14:11, Fouad Hilly wrote:
> @@ -708,11 +712,13 @@ static long cf_check microcode_update_helper(void *data)
>      return ret;
>  }
>  
> -int microcode_update(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(const_void) buf, unsigned long len)
> +int microcode_update(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(const_void) buf, unsigned long len, 
> unsigned int flags)
>  {
>      int ret;
>      struct ucode_buf *buffer;
>  
> +    ucode_force_flag = (flags == XENPF_UCODE_FLAG_FORCE_SET)? 1: 0;

No need for ?: when the lhs has type bool.

But - do we really need to resort to parameter passing via static variables
here? If it's unavoidable, its setting needs to move inside a locked region
(with that region covering everything up to all consumption of the value).

Further, to avoid the same issue again when another flag wants adding, you
want to check that all other bits in the flags field are clear.

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ struct cpu_signature {
>  DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_signature, cpu_sig);
>  
>  void microcode_set_module(unsigned int idx);
> -int microcode_update(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(const_void) buf, unsigned long len);
> +int microcode_update(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(const_void) buf, unsigned long len, 
> unsigned int flags);

Nit: Too long line.

> --- a/xen/include/public/platform.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/platform.h
> @@ -99,6 +99,10 @@ struct xenpf_microcode_update {
>      /* IN variables. */
>      XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(const_void) data;/* Pointer to microcode data */
>      uint32_t length;                  /* Length of microcode data. */
> +    uint32_t flags;                   /* Flags to be passed with ucode. */
> +/* Force to skip microcode version check when set */
> +#define XENPF_UCODE_FLAG_FORCE_NOT_SET 0
> +#define XENPF_UCODE_FLAG_FORCE_SET     1
>  };

The safety of this growing of an existing stable ABI struct wants at least
briefly mentioning in the description.

> @@ -624,6 +628,10 @@ struct xenpf_ucode_revision {
>  typedef struct xenpf_ucode_revision xenpf_ucode_revision_t;
>  DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xenpf_ucode_revision_t);
>  
> +/* Hypercall to microcode_update with flags */
> +#define XENPF_microcode_update2    66
> +
> +

No double blank lines please.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.