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:	Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:00:42 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <>
To:	Chuck Ebbert <>
Cc:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: x86, microcode: BUG: microcode update that changes x86_capability

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 07:54:14AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Assuming we can identify all the affected models and steppings, maybe
> something like this would work:
> 1) Refuse to finish booting if a microcode update that disables TSX
> isn't applied before userspace starts running on those CPUs.

Well, I think when we're booting, we would have already applied the
early microcode, no? Because then it is a non-issue.

> 2) Don't allow a late update if TSX is still enabled on those
> processors.

Yeah, so the use case I have in mind is when a long-running machine
wants to apply microcode and this microcode disables CPUID bits and
instructions. And the machine cannot be rebooted.

I guess in that case we would have to issue a warning only on the
affected processors that a rebooted is mandatory and fail the update...
Maybe something like that.

> (1) could be overridden by a command line option for people who want
> to develop TSX code.

The way I understand it, those people shouldn't apply the microcode
patch at all.

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