linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/microcode: Update late microcode in parallel

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: <20190826130329.GE27636@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:03:29 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc:     Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ashok.raj@...el.com,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com, patrick.colp@...cle.com,
        kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com, Jon.Grimm@....com,
        Thomas.Lendacky@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/microcode: Update late microcode in parallel

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 08:53:05AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> What is the advantage of having those other threads go through
> find_patch() and (in Intel case) intel_get_microcode_revision() (which
> involves two MSR accesses) vs. having the master sibling update slaves'
> microcode revisions? There are only two things that need to be updated,
> uci->cpu_sig.rev and c->microcode.

Less code churn and simplicity.

I accept non-ugly patches, of course. :-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.