> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
