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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/microcode: Support builtin CPU microcode


  • To: Eslam Elnikety <elnikety@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:40:55 +0000
  • Authentication-results: esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFLhNn8BEADVhE+Hb8i0GV6mihnnr/uiQQdPF8kUoFzCOPXkf7jQ5sLYeJa0cQi6Penp VtiFYznTairnVsN5J+ujSTIb+OlMSJUWV4opS7WVNnxHbFTPYZVQ3erv7NKc2iVizCRZ2Kxn srM1oPXWRic8BIAdYOKOloF2300SL/bIpeD+x7h3w9B/qez7nOin5NzkxgFoaUeIal12pXSR Q354FKFoy6Vh96gc4VRqte3jw8mPuJQpfws+Pb+swvSf/i1q1+1I4jsRQQh2m6OTADHIqg2E ofTYAEh7R5HfPx0EXoEDMdRjOeKn8+vvkAwhviWXTHlG3R1QkbE5M/oywnZ83udJmi+lxjJ5 YhQ5IzomvJ16H0Bq+TLyVLO/VRksp1VR9HxCzItLNCS8PdpYYz5TC204ViycobYU65WMpzWe LFAGn8jSS25XIpqv0Y9k87dLbctKKA14Ifw2kq5OIVu2FuX+3i446JOa2vpCI9GcjCzi3oHV e00bzYiHMIl0FICrNJU0Kjho8pdo0m2uxkn6SYEpogAy9pnatUlO+erL4LqFUO7GXSdBRbw5 gNt25XTLdSFuZtMxkY3tq8MFss5QnjhehCVPEpE6y9ZjI4XB8ad1G4oBHVGK5LMsvg22PfMJ ISWFSHoF/B5+lHkCKWkFxZ0gZn33ju5n6/FOdEx4B8cMJt+cWwARAQABtClBbmRyZXcgQ29v cGVyIDxhbmRyZXcuY29vcGVyM0BjaXRyaXguY29tPokCOgQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkI CwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCWKD95wIZAQAKCRBlw/kGpdefoHbdD/9AIoR3k6fKl+RFiFpyAhvO 59ttDFI7nIAnlYngev2XUR3acFElJATHSDO0ju+hqWqAb8kVijXLops0gOfqt3VPZq9cuHlh IMDquatGLzAadfFx2eQYIYT+FYuMoPZy/aTUazmJIDVxP7L383grjIkn+7tAv+qeDfE+txL4 SAm1UHNvmdfgL2/lcmL3xRh7sub3nJilM93RWX1Pe5LBSDXO45uzCGEdst6uSlzYR/MEr+5Z JQQ32JV64zwvf/aKaagSQSQMYNX9JFgfZ3TKWC1KJQbX5ssoX/5hNLqxMcZV3TN7kU8I3kjK mPec9+1nECOjjJSO/h4P0sBZyIUGfguwzhEeGf4sMCuSEM4xjCnwiBwftR17sr0spYcOpqET ZGcAmyYcNjy6CYadNCnfR40vhhWuCfNCBzWnUW0lFoo12wb0YnzoOLjvfD6OL3JjIUJNOmJy RCsJ5IA/Iz33RhSVRmROu+TztwuThClw63g7+hoyewv7BemKyuU6FTVhjjW+XUWmS/FzknSi dAG+insr0746cTPpSkGl3KAXeWDGJzve7/SBBfyznWCMGaf8E2P1oOdIZRxHgWj0zNr1+ooF /PzgLPiCI4OMUttTlEKChgbUTQ+5o0P080JojqfXwbPAyumbaYcQNiH1/xYbJdOFSiBv9rpt TQTBLzDKXok86LkCDQRS4TZ/ARAAkgqudHsp+hd82UVkvgnlqZjzz2vyrYfz7bkPtXaGb9H4 Rfo7mQsEQavEBdWWjbga6eMnDqtu+FC+qeTGYebToxEyp2lKDSoAsvt8w82tIlP/EbmRbDVn 7bhjBlfRcFjVYw8uVDPptT0TV47vpoCVkTwcyb6OltJrvg/QzV9f07DJswuda1JH3/qvYu0p vjPnYvCq4NsqY2XSdAJ02HrdYPFtNyPEntu1n1KK+gJrstjtw7KsZ4ygXYrsm/oCBiVW/OgU g/XIlGErkrxe4vQvJyVwg6YH653YTX5hLLUEL1NS4TCo47RP+wi6y+TnuAL36UtK/uFyEuPy wwrDVcC4cIFhYSfsO0BumEI65yu7a8aHbGfq2lW251UcoU48Z27ZUUZd2Dr6O/n8poQHbaTd 6bJJSjzGGHZVbRP9UQ3lkmkmc0+XCHmj5WhwNNYjgbbmML7y0fsJT5RgvefAIFfHBg7fTY/i kBEimoUsTEQz+N4hbKwo1hULfVxDJStE4sbPhjbsPCrlXf6W9CxSyQ0qmZ2bXsLQYRj2xqd1 bpA+1o1j2N4/au1R/uSiUFjewJdT/LX1EklKDcQwpk06Af/N7VZtSfEJeRV04unbsKVXWZAk uAJyDDKN99ziC0Wz5kcPyVD1HNf8bgaqGDzrv3TfYjwqayRFcMf7xJaL9xXedMcAEQEAAYkC HwQYAQgACQUCUuE2fwIbDAAKCRBlw/kGpdefoG4XEACD1Qf/er8EA7g23HMxYWd3FXHThrVQ HgiGdk5Yh632vjOm9L4sd/GCEACVQKjsu98e8o3ysitFlznEns5EAAXEbITrgKWXDDUWGYxd pnjj2u+GkVdsOAGk0kxczX6s+VRBhpbBI2PWnOsRJgU2n10PZ3mZD4Xu9kU2IXYmuW+e5KCA vTArRUdCrAtIa1k01sPipPPw6dfxx2e5asy21YOytzxuWFfJTGnVxZZSCyLUO83sh6OZhJkk b9rxL9wPmpN/t2IPaEKoAc0FTQZS36wAMOXkBh24PQ9gaLJvfPKpNzGD8XWR5HHF0NLIJhgg 4ZlEXQ2fVp3XrtocHqhu4UZR4koCijgB8sB7Tb0GCpwK+C4UePdFLfhKyRdSXuvY3AHJd4CP 4JzW0Bzq/WXY3XMOzUTYApGQpnUpdOmuQSfpV9MQO+/jo7r6yPbxT7CwRS5dcQPzUiuHLK9i nvjREdh84qycnx0/6dDroYhp0DFv4udxuAvt1h4wGwTPRQZerSm4xaYegEFusyhbZrI0U9tJ B8WrhBLXDiYlyJT6zOV2yZFuW47VrLsjYnHwn27hmxTC/7tvG3euCklmkn9Sl9IAKFu29RSo d5bD8kMSCYsTqtTfT6W4A3qHGvIDta3ptLYpIAOD2sY3GYq2nf3Bbzx81wZK14JdDDHUX2Rs 6+ahAA==
  • Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:41:10 +0000
  • Ironport-sdr: ho34jw2BtAniyBPTghYtmC7dr9uJTiqrYZDREzEpJBeVVBcpUWvdyb6Wm8+sZntf2tcqasquhR ENSLPQc1EJ08INqSQ67PFJ1/zT38IxYQ554l/zv7J+grvfzo+ykHwGOEI6/hGxxzySVsywLCMJ HtwArZvAHYdpKyQojWhRYYfHyL6KjAC1ymbDBp2mz4SkIPJbTvm1R51NZA/81X493/oFg54+1x xPu6WSshRvlQfko/Mxy5tbrs1Xeg0H1VrR1nFNfSGCZBrxoaFeoVBAXyebGfUk46vhIvl9pGFL e6Q=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 09/12/2019 21:49, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
>>> +
>>> +extern const char __builtin_intel_ucode_start[],
>>> __builtin_intel_ucode_end[];
>>> +extern const char __builtin_amd_ucode_start[],
>>> __builtin_amd_ucode_end[];
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>>   /* By default, ucode loading is done in NMI handler */
>>>   static bool ucode_in_nmi = true;
>>>   @@ -110,9 +118,9 @@ void __init microcode_set_module(unsigned int
>>> idx)
>>>   }
>>>     /*
>>> - * The format is '[<integer>|scan=<bool>, nmi=<bool>]'. Both
>>> options are
>>> - * optional. If the EFI has forced which of the multiboot payloads
>>> is to be
>>> - * used, only nmi=<bool> is parsed.
>>> + * The format is '[<integer>|scan=<bool>|builtin=<bool>,
>>> nmi=<bool>]'. All
>>> + * options are optional. If the EFI has forced which of the
>>> multiboot payloads
>>> + * is to be used, only nmi=<bool> is parsed.
>>>    */
>>
>> Please delete this, or I'll do a prereq patch to fix it and the command
>> line docs.  (Both are in a poor state.)
>>
>
> Unless you are planning that along your on-going
> docs/hypervisor-guide/microcode-loading.rst effort, I can pick up this
> clean-up/prereq patch myself. What do you have in mind? (Or point me
> to a good example and I will figure things out).

c/s 3c5552954, 53a84f672, 633a40947 or 3136dee9c are good examples. 
ucode= is definitely more complicated to explain because of its implicit
EFI behaviour.

>
>>> +    else if ( boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL )
>>> +        ucode_blob.size = (size_t)(__builtin_intel_ucode_end
>>> +                                   - __builtin_intel_ucode_start);
>>> +    else
>>> +        return;
>>> +
>>> +    if ( !ucode_blob.size )
>>> +    {
>>> +        printk("No builtin ucode! 'ucode=builtin' is nullified.\n");
>>> +        return;
>>> +    }
>>> +    else if ( ucode_blob.size > MAX_EARLY_CPIO_MICROCODE )
>>> +    {
>>> +        printk("Builtin microcode payload too big! (%ld, we can do
>>> %d)\n",
>>> +               ucode_blob.size, MAX_EARLY_CPIO_MICROCODE);
>>> +        ucode_blob.size = 0;
>>> +        return;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    ucode_blob.data = xmalloc_bytes(ucode_blob.size);
>>> +    if ( !ucode_blob.data )
>>> +        return;
>>
>> Any chance we can reuse the "fits" logic to avoid holding every
>> inapplicable blob in memory as well?
>>
>
> I think this would be a welcomed change. It seems to me that we have
> two ways to go about it.
>
> 1) We factor the code in the intel-/amd-specific cpu_request_microcode
> to extract logic for finding a match into its own new function, expose
> that through microcode_ops, and finally do xalloc only for the
> matching microcode when early loading is scan or builtin.
>
> 2) Cannot we just do away completely with xalloc? I see that each
> individual microcode update gets allocated anyway in
> microcode_intel.c/get_next_ucode_from_buffer() and in
> microcode_amd.c/cpu_request_microcode(). Unless I am missing
> something, the xmalloc_bytes for ucode_blob.data is redundant.
>
> Thoughts?

I'm certain the code is more complicated than it needs to be. 
Cleanup/simplification would be very welcome.  And if you're up for
that, there is a related area which would be a great improvement.

At the moment, BSP microcode loading is very late because it depends on
this xmalloc() to begin with.  However, no memory allocation is needed
to load microcode from a multiboot module or from the initrd, or from
this future builtin location - all loading can be done from a
directmap/bootmap pointer if needs be.

This would allow moving the BSP microcode to much earlier on boot,
probably somewhere between console setup and E820 handling.

One way or another, the microcode cache which persists past boot has to
be xmalloc()'d, because we will free the module/initrd/builtin.  It
would however be more friendly to AP's to only give them the single
correct piece of ucode, rather than everything to scan through.

(These behaviours and expectations are going to be a chunk of my
intended second microcode.rst doc, including a "be aware that machines
exist which do $X" section to cover some of the weirder corner cases we
have encountered.)

>
>>> +
>>> +builtin_ucode.o: Makefile $(amd-blobs) $(intel-blobs)
>>> +    # Create AMD microcode blob if there are AMD updates on the
>>> build system
>>> +    if [ ! -z "$(amd-blobs)" ]; then \
>>> +        cat $(amd-blobs) > $@.bin ; \
>>> +        $(OBJCOPY) -I binary -O elf64-x86-64 -B i386:x86-64
>>> --rename-section
>>> .data=.builtin_amd_ucode,alloc,load,readonly,data,contents $@.bin
>>> $@.amd; \
>>> +        rm -f $@.bin; \
>>> +    fi
>>> +    # Create INTEL microcode blob if there are INTEL updates on the
>>> build system
>>> +    if [ ! -z "$(intel-blobs)" ]; then \
>>> +        cat $(intel-blobs) > $@.bin; \
>>> +        $(OBJCOPY) -I binary -O elf64-x86-64 -B i386:x86-64
>>> --rename-section
>>> .data=.builtin_intel_ucode,alloc,load,readonly,data,contents $@.bin
>>> $@.intel; \
>>> +        rm -f $@.bin; \
>>> +    fi
>>> +    # Create fake builtin_ucode.o if no updates were present.
>>> Otherwise, builtin_ucode.o carries the available updates
>>> +    if [ -z "$(amd-blobs)" -a -z "$(intel-blobs)" ]; then \
>>> +        $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c -x c /dev/null -o $@; \
>>> +    else \
>>> +        $(LD) $(LDFLAGS) -r -o $@ $@.*; \
>>> +        rm -f $@.*; \
>>> +    fi
>>
>> How about using weak symbols, rather than playing games like this?
>
> Just to make sure we are on the same page. You are after a dummy
> binary with weak symbols that eventually get overridden when I link
> the actual microcode binaries into builtin_ucode.o? If so, possible of
> course. Except that I do not particularly see the downside of the
> existing approach with dummy builtin_ucode.o.

Actually, you don't even need week symbols.  Size being 0 means that no
blob was inserted.

There doesn't appear to be a need to organise a dummy builtin_ucode.o,
or to manually merge Intel/AMD together.  Simply make obj-y +=
ucode-$VENDOR.o dependent on there being some blob to insert.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

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