[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801100245010.2200@nanos>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:47:01 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
cc: "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [patch RFC 1/5] x86/CPU: Sync CPU feature flags late
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, Van De Ven, Arjan wrote:
> > In other words, if you use late microcode loading for getting IBRS, you
> > don't get ALTERNATIVE patching and its benefits?
> >
> > I'll also profess some microcode ignorance here. Is "late microcode
> > patching" *all* of the stuff we do from the OS, or do we have early and
> > late Linux loading in addition to what the BIOS can do?
>
> the early boot loader level stuff is much better generally (but does not
> work when the microcode comes out after the system booted... like really
> long uptimes)
That stuff indeed would be way simpler w/o the late support, but the fact
that the microcode for this might reach the user way later than the kernel
support makes it almost a must to support the late loading.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists