| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090309095330.30278385@infradead.org> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 09:53:30 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com> Cc: Dragoslav Zaric <dragoslav.zaric.kd@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Linux* Processor Microcode Data File On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:34:50 +0000 Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com> wrote: > 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? there are various cases where microcode is needed (for example, when you hotplug a new cpu); request_firmware() is just the right way to do such things, and an initscript is just the wrong way -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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