linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/microcode: Support for Intel Staging Feature

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: <b73638a1-9cb9-4b9d-a2e5-d70359260cd2@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:05:42 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Colin Mitchell <colinmitchell@...gle.com>, chang.seok.bae@...el.com
Cc: bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/microcode: Support for Intel Staging Feature

On 2/28/25 14:27, Colin Mitchell wrote:
> As a potential user, I'd advocate for an option to disable legacy
> loading if staging is supported.
> 
> The difference in quiesce time between staging and legacy loading
> can be significant. Since late loading is more of an explicit active
> action, I would believe allowing the initiating process freedom of a retry
> loop or handling any errors from staging makes sense.
> 
> Presumably load_late_locked could return an error on failure
> to stage leading to an appropriate print.

Hey Colin!

You might not have noticed, but this series hasn't even been merged yet.
If this series is an important thing to your employer, I'd really
appreciate some reviews on it from you or anyone else to whom it is
important. That would really speed things along!

Requesting new features to be piled on top of an out-of-tree
under-reviewed patch set is likely to slow things down more than speed
them up.