[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       xen-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] x86/ucode/intel: Remove gratuitous memory allocations from cpu_request_microcode(
From:       Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3 () citrix ! com>
Date:       2020-03-31 14:17:06
Message-ID: 8ac19279-0396-d355-e429-286094b7d7be () citrix ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 31/03/2020 15:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.03.2020 13:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> cpu_request_microcode() needs to scan its container and duplicate one blob,
>> but the get_next_ucode_from_buffer() helper duplicates every blob in turn.
>> Furthermore, the length checking is only safe from overflow in 64bit builds.
>>
>> Delete get_next_ucode_from_buffer() and alter the purpose of the saved
>> variable to simply point somewhere in buf until we're ready to return.
>>
>> This is only a modest reduction in absolute code size (-144), but avoids
>> making memory allocations for every blob in the container.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
>> v2:
>>  * Rebase over struct microcode_patch re-work
>>  * Reinstate printk() for bad data
> Ooi, did the number mentioned above indeed no change with this?
> (I don't mean you to adjust it, as it's precise value is not
> really meaningful anyway without also knowing compiler version
> etc.)

I actually stripped the number after re-reading this on xen-devel.   I
didn't go back to check, but it almost certainly isn't the same.

~Andrew

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]