Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1365028 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86/microcode/amd: Do not overwrite specific patch levels

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86/microcode/amd: Do not overwrite specific patch  levels Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> - 2016-03-27 00:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86/microcode/amd: Do not overwrite specific patch  levels Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-03-27 10:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86/microcode/amd: Do not overwrite specific patch  levels Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> - 2016-03-27 14:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86/microcode/amd: Do not overwrite specific patch  levels Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-03-27 17:50 +0200

#1365028 — Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86/microcode/amd: Do not overwrite specific patch levels

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Certain patch levels supplied by the BIOS should not be upgraded and
> overwritten by the microcode loader because doing so leaves the system
> dead in the water.
> 
> The two below provide for filtering out those levels and avoiding the
> update, thereby making those patch levels final.
> 
> Borislav Petkov (2):
>   x86/microcode/amd: Extract current patch level read to a function
>   x86/microcode/amd: Do not overwrite final patch levels

This patchset looks like it is pretty much a requirement for any distro that
ships AMD microcode updates...  Maybe the two commits should be sent to
-stable, now that they have seen lots of testing in mainline 4.4.x as well
as SuSE kernels?

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1365092

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 08:31:57PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> This patchset looks like it is pretty much a requirement for any distro that
> ships AMD microcode updates...  Maybe the two commits should be sent to
> -stable, now that they have seen lots of testing in mainline 4.4.x as well
> as SuSE kernels?

I wouldn't say lots... :)

Do you have any specific bug report(s) or similar in mind? Or is it more
of a "it would be wise to backport" sentiment?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1365108

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 08:31:57PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > This patchset looks like it is pretty much a requirement for any distro that
> > ships AMD microcode updates...  Maybe the two commits should be sent to
> > -stable, now that they have seen lots of testing in mainline 4.4.x as well
> > as SuSE kernels?
> 
> I wouldn't say lots... :)
> 
> Do you have any specific bug report(s) or similar in mind? Or is it more
> of a "it would be wise to backport" sentiment?

Well, a Google search shows that microcodes 0x100098 and 0x100009f are not
that rare.  IMHO, it is a pretty safe bet that both Debian and Ubuntu have
some users of those microcodes.  Users who will have their systems rendered
unbootable (until we teach them about the dis_ucode_ldr parameter to the
kernel) if they ever install the amd64-microcode package in a kernel that
doesn't have this patchset.

So, it is really a bit of both: I had several "it doesn't work" type of
reports for both AMD and Intel over the years, and most often people won't
come back to the initial bug report, if they even go that far as to report a
bug in the first place: they just remove the microcode update packages and
disapear...  so, I wouldn't know if any were due to this specific issue
except by luck.

But I do assume there are at least 20 users having trouble that will never
report it for each single bug report I get, and it is likely to be a lot
more :-(

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1365136

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 09:32:18AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> So, it is really a bit of both: I had several "it doesn't work" type of
> reports for both AMD and Intel over the years, and most often people won't
> come back to the initial bug report,

Can you CC me on stuff like that too, please.

But yeah, unfortunately, bug reporters disappear and it is kinda hard to
debug an issue then. Which is sad. :-\

But ok. I'll put it on my TODO, will get to it eventually. Unless you
beat me to it... :)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web