[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:0.027 / U:38.700 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site