[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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 ...

| |
| |
| |
| |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.176 / U:0.816 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site