Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:09:14 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: New format Intel microcode... |
| |
> I was mainly concerned with this being a new issue, and curious if > Microsoft was calling an O/S bug a "microcode fix," given that the > average Windows user doesn't know microcode from nanotech anyway. The > non-answer from Arjan didn't answer either, and started by calling the > report FUD, implying that Slashdot was wrong (not about this), and > issuing so little answer and so much obfuscation that I thought he might > be running for President. ;-)
Well you can read the Intel documentation if you want the whole story. You can hardly expect a full introduction in the basics and then subtle issues of TLB flushing in a quick email. You asked about opinions and summaries and those you got.
> I'd like the microcode update,
It's called the "placebo effect" in the literature I believe.
> some people elsewhere speculate that user > level code could effect reliability if not security.
speculate is the key word.
> I worry that an old > 2.4 kernel would be an issue, even in kvm, if that were the case.
TLB flushing in virtualization works completely different. I doubt it would be affected.
-Andi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |