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]

Date:	Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:24:16 +0000
From:	Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
To:	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...izon.net>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Dragoslav Zaric <dragoslav.zaric.kd@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk,
	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
Subject: Re: Linux* Processor Microcode Data File

At the risk of being wrong twice in a row...

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:58:22AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I'll have to admit it was with some trepidation that I might brick my 
> processor, which is a quad core AMD 9550, stepping 03 running at 2.2 ghz, but 

Microcode patching in this particular fashion (i.e. _not_ updating the
BIOS but "on the fly") is volatile (so it has to be redone at every
boot) which should mean it is very hard to brick a machine this way as
rebooting will undo everything. Of course someone is going to tell me
how they managed to kill a machine stone dead due to some sequence of
events I hadn't thought of and I disclaim any responsiblity if someone
tries to update their microcode and harms their machine in any fashion -
you update at your own risk :).

> the directions didn't note until the end, that it would take a 2.6.29 series 
> kernel to do it and I was running 2.6.28.7.  But when I got to the 
> modprobe -r microcode, modprobe microcode part, there was no feedback from 
> either command.  So did I, or did I not do this as I was and am running 
> 2.6.28.7?  The following was reported in my log:

modprobe generally doesn't return much if the module in question loads
or (as in this case because you were using -r) is removed. That's the
typical Unix command line behviour - no response/output on "OK".

> Mar  9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.855365] platform microcode: firmware: requesting amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin
> Mar  9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863101] microcode: size 1936, total_size 960
> Mar  9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863107] microcode: CPU3 patch does not match (processor_rev_id: 1020, eqiv_cpu_id: 1022)
> Mar  9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863110] microcode: size 968, total_size 960
> Mar  9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863120] microcode: CPU3 updated from revision 0x1000065 to 0x1000083
> Mar  9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863122] Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba
> 
> Inquiring minds and all that.  Comments please?

It looks like the firmware file (amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin) doesn't
match your processor. CC'ing Andreas for comment as you have an AMD
machine...

-- 
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/