linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Clear AMD's microcode cache on load failure

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: <Z-apwoVEQkwCH-Y2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:53:06 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Clear AMD's microcode cache on load failure

* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 02:36:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > It would be a pretty common usecase to attempt to load the earlier 
> > version if the loading of a new one doesn't succeed, right?
> 
> This is only for late loading and no one should do that anyway.
> 
> And load failure almost never happens - unless you're a cloud guy doing
> special hackery.
> 
> So no need to expedite this as a fix - the majority does not care.

Well, it's a regression over previous behavior, so it is a regression 
fix for an upstream change that is only a few weeks old, and it's an 
overall quality-of-life fix for those users that are affected. There's 
no exception to the expected upstreaming of regression fixes just 
because there's few users affected.

Given how simple the fix looks, and how fresh the recent big microcode 
loading changes are to begin with, I think we should apply it to 
x86/urgent and then (maybe) it can be forwarded to -stable in a few 
weeks if there's no problems. (Or not.)

Ie. my main point is that delaying it to v6.16 is not justified IMHO.

Thanks,

	Ingo