Impact: fix deadlock

This is in response to the following bug report:

Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12100
Subject         : resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L
Submitter       : Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
Date            : 2008-11-25 08:48 (19 days old)
Handled-By      : Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>

[ The deadlock scenario has been discovered by Andreas Mohr ]

I think I might have a logical explanation why the system:

  (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12100)

might hang upon resuming, OTOH it should have likely hanged each and every time.

(1) possible deadlock in microcode_resume_cpu() if either 'if' section is
taken;

(2) now, I don't see it in spec. and can't experimentally verify it (newer
ucodes don't seem to be available for my Core2duo)... but logically-wise, I'd
think that when read upon resuming, the 'microcode revision' (MSR 0x8B) should
be back to its original one (we need to reload ucode anyway so it doesn't seem
logical if a cpu doesn't drop the version)... if so, the comparison with
memcmp() for the full 'struct cpu_signature' is wrong... and that's how one of
the aforementioned 'if' sections might have been triggered - leading to a
deadlock.

Obviously, in my tests I simulated loading/resuming with the ucode of the same
version (just to see that the file is loaded/re-loaded upon resuming) so this
issue has never popped up.

I'd appreciate if someone with an appropriate system might give a try to the
2nd patch (titled "fix a comparison && deadlock...").

In any case, the deadlock situation is a must-have fix.

Reported-by: Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Impact: make global variables and a function static

Fix following sparse warnings:

  arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c:102:22: warning: symbol
  'microcode_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
  arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c:206:24: warning: symbol
  'microcode_pdev' was not declared. Should it be static?
  arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c:322:6: warning: symbol
  'microcode_update_cpu' was not declared. Should it be static?
  arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c:468:22: warning: symbol
  'microcode_intel_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?

Signed-off-by: Hannes Eder <hannes@hanneseder.net>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Combine both generic and arch-specific parts of microcode into a
single module (arch-specific parts are config-dependent).

Also while we are at it, move arch-specific parts from microcode.h
into their respective arch-specific .c files.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Cc: "Peter Oruba" <peter.oruba@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

based on patch from Dmitry Adamushko.

- add missing vfree()
- update debug printks

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

this is a rework of the microcode splitup in tip/x86/microcode

(1) I think this new interface is cleaner (look at the changes
    in 'struct microcode_ops' in microcode.h);

(2) it's -64 lines of code;

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

This is the 1st patch in the series. Here the aim was to avoid any
significant changes, logically-wise.

So it's mainly about generic interface refactoring: e.g. make
microcode_{intel,amd}.c more about arch-specific details and less
about policies like make-sure-we-run-on-a-target-cpu
(no more set_cpus_allowed_ptr() here) and generic synchronization (no
more microcode_mutex here).

All in all, more line have been deleted than added.

4 files changed, 145 insertions(+), 198 deletions(-)

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Don't use get_cpu() at all. Resort to checking a boot-up CPU (#0) in
microcode_{intel,amd}_module_init().

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

The microcode stores its date in a uint32_t in some weird order
approximating pdp-endian. Rather than printing it like that, print it
properly in ISO standard form.

Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Signed-off-by: Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@amd.com>
Cc: Tigran Aivazian <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>