On 24.10.2024 15:22, Andrew Cooper wrote: > This was true in the K10 days, but even back then the match registers were > really payload data rather than header data. > > But, it's really model specific data, and these days typically part of the > signature, so is random data for all intents and purposes. > > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> > --- > CC: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > CC: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> > > The single difference from this is: > > @@ -207587,7 +207587,7 @@ > ffff82d0402ad261: 4c 89 ce mov %r9,%rsi > ffff82d0402ad264: 4c 39 c8 cmp %r9,%rax > ffff82d0402ad267: 0f 82 c2 11 f6 ff jb ffff82d04020e42f > <amd_ucode_parse.cold+0x55> > -ffff82d0402ad26d: 41 83 f9 3f cmp $0x3f,%r9d > +ffff82d0402ad26d: 41 83 f9 1f cmp $0x1f,%r9d > ffff82d0402ad271: 0f 86 b8 11 f6 ff jbe ffff82d04020e42f > <amd_ucode_parse.cold+0x55> > ffff82d0402ad277: 85 ed test %ebp,%ebp > ffff82d0402ad279: 75 55 jne ffff82d0402ad2d0 > <amd_ucode_parse+0x170> > > which is "mc->len < sizeof(struct microcode_patch)" expression in > amd_ucode_parse().
Yet is it correct to effectively relax that check, i.e. to accept something we previously would have rejected? Jan
