[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEApFrhJzPkrP3jSiZUd4f-vqf89y6T7q9fRpDPsPumvByC+6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:27:21 +0100
From: Piotr DÄ…browski <ultr@...r.pl>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: new cmdline parameter disable_cpu_features= (microcode update?)
Thank you for your reply.
> You cannot change the microcode patches - they're supplied by the CPU
> vendors as is and are signed/encrypted.
Is the microcode's header encrypted too?
I thought there are two Processor Flags fields ('pf') available [1].
Are they what I think they are?
Is the header signed too, or only the actual microcode blob below the
headers is?
Sorry if I get it all wrong and there is no use for further discussion.
Do you think there is any point in actually implementing the
kernel-only disable_cpu_features= option upstream
and then somehow convince the userland to respect flags reported by
the kernel instead of those from the CPU?
[1] arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h:
struct microcode_header_intel {
unsigned int hdrver;
unsigned int rev;
unsigned int date;
unsigned int sig;
unsigned int cksum;
unsigned int ldrver;
unsigned int pf;
unsigned int datasize;
unsigned int totalsize;
unsigned int reserved[3];
};
[...]
/* microcode format is extended from prescott processors */
struct extended_signature {
unsigned int sig;
unsigned int pf;
unsigned int cksum;
};
Best Regards,
Piotr DÄ…browski
--
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