On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Jia Zhang wrote:
> For more details, see erratum BDF90 in document #334165 (Intel Xeon
> Processor E7-8800/4800 v4 Product Family Specification Update) from
> September 2017.
For the record, this erratum may well affect some E5v4 as well.
Anything with a LLC/core ratio >= 2.5 is potentially affected as far as
I could tell when I took a serious look at it months ago (based only on
crash reports and public information).
It would be safer to just blacklist by sig == 0x406f1, revision <
0x0b00021, and LLC/core ratio >= 2.5, ignoring platform IDs.
> /*
> * Late loading on model 79 with microcode revision less than 0x0b000021
> - * may result in a system hang. This behavior is documented in item
> - * BDF90, #334165 (Intel Xeon Processor E7-8800/4800 v4 Product Family).
> + * and LLC size per core bigger than 2.5MB may result in a system hang.
> + * This behavior is documented in item BDF90, #334165 (Intel Xeon
> + * Processor E7-8800/4800 v4 Product Family).
> */
> if (c->x86 == 6 &&
> c->x86_model == INTEL_FAM6_BROADWELL_X &&
> c->x86_mask == 0x01 &&
> + llc_size_per_core(c) > 2621440 &&
> + c->platform_id == 0xef &&
> c->microcode < 0x0b000021) {
> pr_err_once("Erratum BDF90: late loading with revision <
> 0x0b000021 (0x%x) disabled.\n", c->microcode);
> pr_err_once("Please consider either early loading through
> initrd/built-in or a potential BIOS update.\n");
The c->platform_id test looks wrong. The processor will only have a
single bit set, it is the microcode update that has more than a single
bit set.
And do you really want 0xef? That is everyhing the public available
microcode updates can be applied to in the first place, so even a
corrected test would be useless (it would always match) unless you
actually expect to find never-seen-in-the-wild platform mask 0x10?
--
Henrique Holschuh
