linux-kernel - Re: Fix built-in early-load Intel microcode alignment

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:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:44:25 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jari Ruusu <jari.ruusu@...il.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, johannes.berg@...el.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fix built-in early-load Intel microcode alignment

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 7:47 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> So I'd like to determine first if we really need this. Then if so,
> either add a new global config option, and worst comes to worst
> figure out a way to do it per driver. I don't think we'd need it
> per driver.

I really don't think we need to have a config option for some small
alignment. Increasing the alignment unconditionally to 16 bytes won't
hurt anybody.

Now, whether there might be other firmware loaders that need even more
alignment, that might be an interesting question, and if such an
alignment would be _huge_ we might want to worry about actual memory
waste.

But 16-byte alignment for a fw blob? That's nothing.

                Linus