linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu: Sort the Intel microcode defines by Family-model-stepping

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: <325d7781-dede-4b12-b8e7-3332bec4ee20@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 20:33:45 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu: Sort the Intel microcode defines by
 Family-model-stepping

On 7/14/25 19:00, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> Keeping the Intel microcode defines sorted by Family-model-stepping is
> crucial to its long-term maintainability. This would prevent unnecessary
> changes and duplicate entries whenever they are updated.

I've been procrastinating putting my script that generated that file
into the tree. But we should probably just have it do the sorting and
just update the file the next time we update the microcode versions.

But either way, I'm not concerned about maintainability. I just re-run
the script and regenerate the whole file each time.