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

Re: [PATCH 07/10] x86/ucode: Move the CPIO path string into microcode_ops


  • To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 16:06:44 +0100
  • 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: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P . Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:06:52 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 28.10.2024 15:38, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 28/10/2024 2:25 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 28.10.2024 10:18, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> We've got a perfectly good vendor abstraction already for microcode.  No 
>>> need
>>> for a second ad-hoc one in microcode_scan_module().
>>>
>>> This is in preparation to use ucode_ops.cpio_path in multiple places.
>>>
>>> These paths are only used during __init, so take the opportunity to move 
>>> them
>>> into __initconst.
>> As an alternative to this, how about ...
>>
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/private.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/private.h
>>> @@ -59,6 +59,13 @@ struct microcode_ops {
>>>       */
>>>      enum microcode_match_result (*compare_patch)(
>>>          const struct microcode_patch *new, const struct microcode_patch 
>>> *old);
>>> +
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * For Linux inird microcode compatibliity.
>>> +     *
>>> +     * The path where this vendor's microcode can be found in CPIO.
>>> +     */
>>> +    const char *cpio_path;
>>     const char cpio_path[];
>>
>> inheriting the __initconst from the struct instances?
>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> with a slight preference to the form without the extra pointer.
> 
> I'm slightly surprised at this request, given that the form with the
> pointer results in less data held at runtime.

No, it doesn't. Yet I only now realize that ...

>>  Except that:
>> gcc14 looks to be buggy when it comes to the copying of such a struct. The
>> example below yields an internal compiler error. And the direct structure
>> assignment also doesn't quite do what I would expect it to do (visible when
>> commenting out the "else" branch. Bottom line - leave the code as is.
> 
> It's unfortunate to hit an ICE, but the copy cannot possibly work in the
> first place.
> 
> ucode_ops is in a separate translation unit and has no space allocated
> after the flexible member.   Any copy into it is memory corruption of
> whatever object happens to be sequentially after ucode_ops.

... my expectation of how the copy ought to work (and how the C standard,
at least in close enough an example, specifies it) would specifically _not_
suit our needs. The copy ought to only cover sizeof(struct ...), i.e. not
the string. Yet we'd need that string to be copied to be usable for our
purposes.

> The only way it would work is having `const char cpio_path[40];` which
> is long enough for anything we'd expect to find.
> 
> But again, that involves holding init-only data post init.

This, indeed, would increase post-init size. Yet with the compiler issue
no question arises anyway as to how this needs doing.

Jan



 


Rackspace

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