linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] intel_microcode, Fix long microcode load time when firmware file is missing

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:	Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:25:32 -0400
From:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86@...nel.org, herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com,
	tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] intel_microcode, Fix long microcode load time when
 firmware file is missing



On 10/21/2013 08:32 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And why don't you pass FW_ACTION_HOTPLUG? and you are sure
>>> that udev isn't required to handle your microcode update request?
>>>
>>
>> AFAICT in both cases, udev wasn't required to handle the cpu microcode update.
>> Both drivers use CMH to load the firmware which removes the need for udev to do
>> anything.  Admittedly maybe I've missed some odd use case but I don't think it
>> is necessary.
> 
> OK, so I guess the CMH still need uevent to get notified, right?

The code as it is _currently_ written does not use uevents to load the processor
firmware.  ie) call_usermodehelper does not need uevent to get notified, so I
think FW_ACTION_NOHOTPLUG is correct.

P.
--
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/