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  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:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:02:39 +0100
From:	Dmitry Adamushko <>
To:	Andreas Herrmann <>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <>, Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, ucode-amd: Load ucode-patches once and not 
	separately fo each CPU

2009/11/10 Andreas Herrmann <>:
> This also implies that corresponding log messages, e.g.
>  platform microcode: firmware: requesting amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin
> show up only once on module load and not when ucode is updated for
> each CPU.

I like it.

One remark : should we perhaps provide a means of reloading the cached
firmware? Or is the standard procedure to reload microcode.ko in case
a new firmware file has been installed?

btw., if we could safely assume that all the cpus after the ucode
upgrade share the same version/patch-level of ucode, we would be able
to cache a single ucode instance once and use it for all. I don't
recall anyone clearly stating that such multi-cpu-type systems can't
really exist.

e.g. is it possible to have AMD systems with cpus which differ from
each other not only by their revisions (patch_level)?

-- Dmitry
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists