| 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: <4B173FE0.7030302@majjas.com> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:34:40 -0500 From: Michael Breuer <mbreuer@...jas.com> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Bug (minor): microcode_intel.c applies updates to hyperthreaded cores Fair point - guess it's a different bug. Looks like the mechanism sets up the requests first for all cpus, then loads them. apply_microcode doesn't recheck. CPU is a core i7 920; ht enabled. cpuinfo shows 4 cores; 8 cpus, as expected. From my log: Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU0 sig=0x106a5, pf=0x2, revision=0xf Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode/06-1a-05 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU1 sig=0x106a5, pf=0x2, revision=0xf Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode/06-1a-05 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU2 sig=0x106a5, pf=0x2, revision=0xf Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode/06-1a-05 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU3 sig=0x106a5, pf=0x2, revision=0xf Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode/06-1a-05 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU4 sig=0x106a5, pf=0x2, revision=0xf Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode/06-1a-05 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU5 sig=0x106a5, pf=0x2, revision=0xf Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode/06-1a-05 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU6 sig=0x106a5, pf=0x2, revision=0xf Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode/06-1a-05 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU7 sig=0x106a5, pf=0x2, revision=0xf Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode/06-1a-05 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU0 updated to revision 0x11, date = 2009-04-14 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU1 updated to revision 0x11, date = 2009-04-14 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU2 updated to revision 0x11, date = 2009-04-14 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU3 updated to revision 0x11, date = 2009-04-14 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU4 updated to revision 0x11, date = 2009-04-14 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU5 updated to revision 0x11, date = 2009-04-14 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU6 updated to revision 0x11, date = 2009-04-14 Dec 2 16:53:47 mail kernel: microcode: CPU7 updated to revision 0x11, date = 2009-04-14 On 12/02/2009 11:20 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:06:19 -0500 > Michael Breuer<mbreuer@...jas.com> wrote: > > >> According to spec, microcode should only be applied to actual cores. >> As things are currently structured, looks like the fix would be in >> microcode_core.c. I don't think changing the loop to look for cores >> vs. cpu's would affect anything adversely, but honestly am not >> familiar enough with this code or other cpu types to be sure. >> >> > isn't this > > for each (logical) cpu > check microcode version of the cpu > if too old, apply microcode > > the 2nd pair of a hyperthreading pair will never see the 'too old' case > happen... > > > -- 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