lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: new cmdline parameter disable_cpu_features= (microcode update?)
Thank you for your reply.

> You cannot change the microcode patches - they're supplied by the CPU
> vendors as is and are signed/encrypted.

Is the microcode's header encrypted too?
I thought there are two Processor Flags fields ('pf') available [1].
Are they what I think they are?
Is the header signed too, or only the actual microcode blob below the
headers is?
Sorry if I get it all wrong and there is no use for further discussion.

Do you think there is any point in actually implementing the
kernel-only disable_cpu_features= option upstream
and then somehow convince the userland to respect flags reported by
the kernel instead of those from the CPU?

[1] arch/x86/include/asm/microcode_intel.h:
struct microcode_header_intel {
unsigned int hdrver;
unsigned int rev;
unsigned int date;
unsigned int sig;
unsigned int cksum;
unsigned int ldrver;
unsigned int pf;
unsigned int datasize;
unsigned int totalsize;
unsigned int reserved[3];
};
[...]
/* microcode format is extended from prescott processors */
struct extended_signature {
unsigned int sig;
unsigned int pf;
unsigned int cksum;
};

Best Regards,
Piotr Dąbrowski


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-05 02:01    [W:0.055 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site