linux-kernel - Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:07:26 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@....com>
Cc:	"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@...ian.org>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tigran Aivazian <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to
	microcode_intel.c.


* Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@....com> wrote:

> Giacomo A. Catenazzi schrieb:
> > Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> >> 2008/9/19 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@....com>:
> >>> Some additonal words regarding the current user space issues:
> >>>
> >>> IMHO the most convenient way to update microcode is through the
> >>> firmware loading
> >>> interface instead of microcode_ctl. This reduces user-space
> >>> responsibilities to
> >>> loading the correct module at boot time and to place the microcode
> >>> patch file at
> >>> the right location via package installation. The problems mentioned
> >>> in this
> >>> thread would then probably disappear as well. What do you guys think?
> >>
> >> It'd still require changes for all the setups that currently rely on
> >> the 'microcode_ctl' interface. Moreover, Arjan's setup failed not due
> >> to the 'microcode_ctl' per se but due to the altered kernel module
> >> name. After all, we can't break the established interface this way.
> >>
> >> We can either reserve 'microcode' as a legacy name for intel cpus (==
> >> microcode_intel), or maybe we can use request_module() from
> >> microcode.ko to load a proper arch-specific module (I guess, it's not
> >> ok for !KMOD-enabled kernels).
> > 
> > I agree. A wrapper "microcode.ko" module would be nice, in order
> > to allow independent kernel and user space upgrades.
> > 
> > The module name is important also on udev method: only a module
> > load triggers the microcode request in udev, thus also the
> > new method should have stable kernel module name.
> > 
> > ciao
> >     cate
> > 
> 
> That sounds like a single-module solution would be the best way to go. 
> All dependencies would then be handled inside the module.

yes - as long as the internal abstraction is clean (and it is rather 
clean with Dmitry's changes applied too), that should be fine and 
maintainable.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/