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:	Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:03:52 +0200
From:	Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@....com>
To:	"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@...ian.org>
CC:	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	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.

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.

-Peter

--
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/