6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: "Borislav Petkov (AMD)" bp@alien8.de
commit d1744a4c975b1acbe8b498356d28afbc46c88428 upstream
Commit in Fixes changed how a microcode patch is loaded on Zen and newer but the patch matching needs to happen with different rigidity, depending on what is being done:
1) When the patch is added to the patches cache, the stepping must be ignored because the driver still supports different steppings per system
2) When the patch is matched for loading, then the stepping must be taken into account because each CPU needs the patch matching its exact stepping
Take care of that by making the matching smarter.
Fixes: 94838d230a6c ("x86/microcode/AMD: Use the family,model,stepping encoded in the patch ID") Reported-by: Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) bp@alien8.de Tested-by: Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/91194406-3fdf-4e38-9838-d334af538f74@kernel.dk Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/amd.c @@ -615,16 +615,19 @@ static int __init save_microcode_in_init } early_initcall(save_microcode_in_initrd);
-static inline bool patch_cpus_equivalent(struct ucode_patch *p, struct ucode_patch *n) +static inline bool patch_cpus_equivalent(struct ucode_patch *p, + struct ucode_patch *n, + bool ignore_stepping) { /* Zen and newer hardcode the f/m/s in the patch ID */ if (x86_family(bsp_cpuid_1_eax) >= 0x17) { union cpuid_1_eax p_cid = ucode_rev_to_cpuid(p->patch_id); union cpuid_1_eax n_cid = ucode_rev_to_cpuid(n->patch_id);
- /* Zap stepping */ - p_cid.stepping = 0; - n_cid.stepping = 0; + if (ignore_stepping) { + p_cid.stepping = 0; + n_cid.stepping = 0; + }
return p_cid.full == n_cid.full; } else { @@ -646,13 +649,13 @@ static struct ucode_patch *cache_find_pa WARN_ON_ONCE(!n.patch_id);
list_for_each_entry(p, µcode_cache, plist) - if (patch_cpus_equivalent(p, &n)) + if (patch_cpus_equivalent(p, &n, false)) return p;
return NULL; }
-static inline bool patch_newer(struct ucode_patch *p, struct ucode_patch *n) +static inline int patch_newer(struct ucode_patch *p, struct ucode_patch *n) { /* Zen and newer hardcode the f/m/s in the patch ID */ if (x86_family(bsp_cpuid_1_eax) >= 0x17) { @@ -661,6 +664,9 @@ static inline bool patch_newer(struct uc zp.ucode_rev = p->patch_id; zn.ucode_rev = n->patch_id;
+ if (zn.stepping != zp.stepping) + return -1; + return zn.rev > zp.rev; } else { return n->patch_id > p->patch_id; @@ -670,10 +676,14 @@ static inline bool patch_newer(struct uc static void update_cache(struct ucode_patch *new_patch) { struct ucode_patch *p; + int ret;
list_for_each_entry(p, µcode_cache, plist) { - if (patch_cpus_equivalent(p, new_patch)) { - if (!patch_newer(p, new_patch)) { + if (patch_cpus_equivalent(p, new_patch, true)) { + ret = patch_newer(p, new_patch); + if (ret < 0) + continue; + else if (!ret) { /* we already have the latest patch */ kfree(new_patch->data); kfree(new_patch);