linux-kernel - Re: [patch 29/30] x86/microcode: Prepare for minimal revision check

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230810205427.GG212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 22:54:27 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 29/30] x86/microcode: Prepare for minimal revision check

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 08:38:09PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> 
> Applying microcode late can be fatal for the running kernel when the update
> changes functionality which is in use already in a non-compatible way,
> e.g. by removing a CPUID bit.

This includes all compatibility constraints? Because IIRC we've also had
trouble because a CPUID bit got set. Kernel didn't know about, didn't
manage it, but userspace saw the bit and happily tried to use it.

Ofc I can't remember the exact case :/ but anything that changes the
xsave size/state would obviously cause trouble.