On 05.04.2024 14:11, Fouad Hilly wrote:
> Remove microcode version check at Intel and AMD Level.
> Microcode version check will be at higher and common level.
"will be" reads as if you're removing logic here, to introduce some replacement
later. If so, that's going to be a transient regression, which needs avoiding.
Indeed ...
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/amd.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/amd.c
> @@ -383,12 +383,8 @@ static struct microcode_patch *cf_check
> cpu_request_microcode(
> goto skip;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * If the new ucode covers current CPU, compare ucodes and store
> the
> - * one with higher revision.
> - */
> - if ( (microcode_fits(mc->patch) != MIS_UCODE) &&
> - (!saved || (compare_header(mc->patch, saved) == NEW_UCODE))
> )
> + /* If the provided ucode covers current CPU, then store its
> revision. */
> + if ( (microcode_fits(mc->patch) != MIS_UCODE) && !saved )
> {
> saved = mc->patch;
> saved_size = mc->len;
... this looks like a logic change to me, with there not being anything
similar in common code afaics. Am I overlooking anything?
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/intel.c
> @@ -294,8 +294,7 @@ static int cf_check apply_microcode(const struct
> microcode_patch *patch)
>
> result = microcode_update_match(patch);
>
> - if ( result != NEW_UCODE &&
> - !(opt_ucode_allow_same && result == SAME_UCODE) )
> + if ( result != NEW_UCODE && result != SAME_UCODE )
> return -EINVAL;
I'm afraid I can't relate this adjustment with title and description of
the patch.
Jan
