Re: [patch V3 26/30] x86/microcode: Protect against instrumentation

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>  	for (timeout = 0; timeout < USEC_PER_SEC; timeout++) {
> -		if (!atomic_read(cnt))
> +		if (!raw_atomic_read(cnt))
>  			return true;
> -		udelay(1);
> +
> +		for (loops = 0; loops < loops_per_usec; loops++)
> +			cpu_relax();
> +

Ah, you're dropping udelay because it is not noinstr...

> @@ -427,25 +464,43 @@ static void ucode_load_primary(unsigned
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static bool microcode_update_handler(void)
> +static noinstr bool microcode_update_handler(void)
>  {
> -	unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +	unsigned int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>  
> -	if (this_cpu_read(ucode_ctrl.ctrl_cpu) == cpu)
> +	if (raw_cpu_read(ucode_ctrl.ctrl_cpu) == cpu) {
> +		instrumentation_begin();
>  		ucode_load_primary(cpu);
> -	else
> +		instrumentation_end();

Might as well make the load on the primary noinstr too. I wouldn't lose
any sleep over the late microcode loading code not being traceable.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette