linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/4] x86: AMD microcode patch loading v2 fixes

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]

Message-ID: <b647ffbd0808010425r16db2957i3e7212903a698c19@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:25:26 +0200
From:	"Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To:	"Peter Oruba" <peter.oruba@....com>,
	"Tigran Aivazian" <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>
Cc:	"Max Krasnyansky" <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] x86: AMD microcode patch loading v2 fixes

Tigran, Peter,

may a firmware package contain a few 'microcode' updates for a specific cpu?

And if so, does each of them provide independent 'errata' fixes? [*]

(or they are just different versions of the same self-consistent/full
'microcode' update and we may need to apply each of them just e.g.
because we can't jump from stepping X.1 to X.3 without applying X.2 in
between?

if it's [1], then I wonder why only a single 'microcode' update (which
has been previously cached in 'uci->mc') is being applied for the case
of system-wide resume (apply_microcode_check_cpu()). Don't we need to
go through the full cpu_request_microcode() cycle to consider all
updates?

TIA,

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
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/