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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:13:31 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc:     Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.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 Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 05:56:30PM -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> > "Cloud customers have expressed discontent as services disappear for
> > a prolonged time. The restriction is that only one core (or only one
> > thread of a core in the case of an SMT system) goes through the update
> > while other cores (or respectively, SMT threads) are quiesced."
> 
> the last line seems to imply that only one core can be updated at a time.

Only one core *is* being updated at a time now, before the parallel
loading patch. Look at the code. I'm talking about what the code does,
not what the requirement is.

Maybe it should not say "restriction" above but the sentence should
start with: "Currently, only one core... "

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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