Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:59:20 +0000 (GMT) | From | Peter Horton <> | Subject | Re: Intel microcode fixes [OFF-TOPIC] |
| |
On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, John Fulmer wrote: > > > > > EGADS! Is there NO security on the processor microcode? Could this be > > exploited to do evil narsty things? > > > > In a serious note (microcode viruses aside), I don't think that I or many > > other people even knew that Intel's microcode was changeable. I wonder > > what the security implications could be? > > > > Does Linux protect the cpu at all in this instance? > Calm down. Imho, nobody (not even OS vendors) know or care what is in those > "microcode fixes". Intel gives everybody a binary "blob" and OS puts it > where needed. Of course, anyone can use it to his advantage, e.g. putting > the blobe only in OS release > X.Y and thus forcing customers to use that > release (or risk missing something very important in those "blobs") or say > "such and such OS has this blob and Linux does not, so...". The interesting > dilema is whether these blobs can go into the official kernel or not. Since > there would be no such thing as "source"; for the microcode itself *is* a > source so applying GPL to it is like multiplying a vector with identity matrix? > > Regards, > T. >
The microcode update modules are usually installed by the BIOS during POST as the BIOS may need some of the microcode fixes to boot ...
--- | pdh@colonel-panic.com | | pdh@berserk.demon.co.uk | | http://www.colonel-panic.com | | http://www.berserk.demon.co.uk |
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |