On 11/8/2022 7:03 PM, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> On 11/7/2022 2:53 PM, Jithu Joseph wrote:
>> IFS test image carries the same microcode header as regular Intel
>> microcode blobs. Microcode blobs use header version of 1,
>> whereas IFS test images will use header version of 2.
>>
>> microcode_sanity_check() can be used by IFS driver to perform
>> sanity check of the IFS test images too.
>>
>> Refactor header version as a parameter, move it to cpu/intel.c
>> and expose this function. Qualify the function name with intel.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> ...
>
>> + if (data_size + MC_HEADER_SIZE > total_size) {
>> + if (print_err)
>> + pr_err("Error: invalid/unknown microcode update format.\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>
> The wording for the "bad file size" print seems to have changed during the move. Any specific reason for this?
Thanks again Sohil for reviewing.
Only the next print, associated with the version check was meant to be modified.
Looks like I mistakenly updated the one above also.
I will await all comments and correct this in the next revision.
>
>> - if (data_size + MC_HEADER_SIZE > total_size) {
>> - if (print_err)
>> - pr_err("Error: bad microcode data file size.\n");
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> - }
>> -
>
> Other than that,
>
> Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@xxxxxxxxx>
Jithu
