Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:48:29 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: 4.15.17 regression: bisected: timeout during microcode update |
| |
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:35:31AM +0200, Vitezslav Samel wrote: > > - Can you remove your builtin microcode, > > - rename the /lib/firmware/intel-ucode so we don't find it during late loading. > > - let the system boot completely > > - then rename the intel-ucode back for this test. > > - write 1 to reload and see if that update succeeds or fails? > > Just tested, it fails.
Can you apply the below patch, do the exact same exercise and catch the output? Over serial console or netconsole or if nothing else, do a video of the screen with a phone and upload it somewhere?
Thx.
--- diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c index 10c4fc2c91f8..374ec1d75d89 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c @@ -553,6 +553,8 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info) enum ucode_state err; int ret = 0; + pr_info("%s: CPU%d\n", __func__, cpu); + /* * Wait for all CPUs to arrive. A load will not be attempted unless all * CPUs show up. @@ -560,6 +562,8 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info) if (__wait_for_cpus(&late_cpus_in, NSEC_PER_SEC)) return -1; + pr_info("%s: CPU%d reloading\n", __func__, cpu); + spin_lock(&update_lock); apply_microcode_local(&err); spin_unlock(&update_lock); @@ -571,9 +575,12 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info) } else if (err == UCODE_UPDATED || err == UCODE_OK) { ret = 1; } else { + pr_info("%s: CPU%d returning 0x%x\n", __func__, cpu, ret); return ret; } + pr_info("%s: CPU%d waiting to exit\n", __func__, cpu); + /* * Increase the wait timeout to a safe value here since we're * serializing the microcode update and that could take a while on a -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) --
| |