linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Track minimum microcode revision globally v2

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: <20120612225344.GE11413@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:53:44 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	hpa@...or.com, eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Track minimum microcode revision globally v2

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:19:31AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:09:25PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > >Ok, is it only me or is this boot_min_microcode superfluous?
> > >IOW, you can only use boot_cpu_data.microcode instead and drop
> > >boot_min_microcode.
> > 
> > boot_cpu_data.microcode contains a copy of the original microcode,
> > so we couldn't detect the boot cpu case. In theory could hard code
> > CPU #0 is boot cpu or so,
> > but I prefer to track it with the separate variable.
> 
> Ok, this begs the next question then: why do we need to say that some AP
> has a lower ucode version than the BSP?

I would consider that a BIOS bug.

-Andi
--
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/