linux-kernel - Re: Linux* Processor Microcode Data File

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: <20090309153449.GB24213@silver.sucs.org>
Date:	Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:34:50 +0000
From:	Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dragoslav Zaric <dragoslav.zaric.kd@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux* Processor Microcode Data File

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:11:09AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:16:55 +0000
> Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com> wrote:
> 
> > The kernel doesn't load microcode automatically 
> 
> it does if you have the right format; the kernel uses
> request_firmware() for this.
> The microcode on the intel website is not ready for this yet, but we're
> working hard to have future drops to be in the new format.

Wow so I was redundant AND wrong in the same email!

What motivated the switch to the generic request_firmware interface? Is
it just less messy/faster than previous methods?

Additionally while I remember, is it worth updating the microcode on all
machines? At present I have an EeePC 900 and it's unclear if it would
benefit from a microcode update (but there's a definite cost to running
the current initscript at boot).

-- 
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
--
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/