[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200113204611.GS13310@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 21:46:11 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jari Ruusu <jari.ruusu@...il.com>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
johannes.berg@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fix built-in early-load Intel microcode alignment
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:30:13PM +0200, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> On 1/13/20, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> > Btw, just out of curiosity: why are you using built-in microcode and not
> > the initrd method?
>
> Initrd method is better when it is a kernel intended to be booted
> on many different computers. Built-in microcode method kernel is
> tuned for one computer only. It is less hassle that way.
Oh well, you only need to do an initrd which is not that big of a deal.
The built-in method requires you to rebuild the kernel when there's
new microcode but new microcode is a relatively seldom occurrence
in practice. The last two years putting my statistics completely
out-of-whack.
But they should be coming back to normal because there should simply
be no more room for microcode patches anymore in the most x86 CPUs out
there. :)
So if you're building kernels often, it doesn't really matter if you do
initrd or builtin microcode.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists