linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/microcode/intel: Remove unnecessary cache writeback and invalidation

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: <6332f158-005b-4c3c-8709-350dbee23f7a@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 13:55:19 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
 Yan Hua Wu <yanhua1.wu@...el.com>, William Xie <william.xie@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/microcode/intel: Remove unnecessary cache
 writeback and invalidation

On 7/3/24 13:50, Ashok Raj wrote:
> Agree that we must get wider testing. Only caveat is that you should find a
> newer microcode to apply, which might be difficult for all products. Unless
> there is a debug option to reload force the same rev in case you don't have
> a newer ucode to test. Its good to get this in to reduce the big hammer
> effect.

Why is it hard to find a newer microcode to apply?  Just because the
BIOS-provided one is more likely to be the last update the other the CPU?