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:	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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ