Re: [lfs-support] Intel microcode updates adding confusion?
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 02:31:27PM -0800, Paul Rogers wrote: > > For matching filenames to hardware, I guess you mean the family - > > - model - stepping part : I don't know of any way to convert that to > > particular CPUs, > > /proc/cpuinfo gives us that, plus the microcode level. > No, it gives you that for the current CPU. I thought you were asking how to translate the file names in general. > > I have avoided using initrds, and want to continue to do so. I don't build > POD with the idea it will be thrown at arbitrary hardware. Initial kernels > are built monolithically to boot on reasonably common hardware of a certain > vintage, but after booting the sysadmin is expected to soon build a > customized kernel, eliminating a lot of HD drivers, adding NIC, ALSA, > AGP/FB/DRI--none of which are *necessary* to boot. I don't have any love for general initrds, but using an initrd for microcode allows early loading - for a few intel machines with buggy microcode, that is the only available method. But since you aren't going to load new microcode without knowing what it does (I suppose that means knowing what it claims to fix, otherwise you would not be looking at microcode at all), for your older machines I guess you will never apply any. ĸen -- Truth, in front of her huge walk-in wardrobe, selected black leather boots with stiletto heels for such a barefaced truth. - Unseen Academicals -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] Intel microcode updates adding confusion?
> > Not all the microcode is to fix Spectre! True enough, but I don't feel an urgency to fix anything else. ;-) > > My experience is that intel microcode for older processors does not > get changed, but they copy it into the latest tarball. Intel took some heat for their early attempts at deflection, which is why they've released this ancient microcode, I suppose. The question remains whether it, say the P3 microcode, patches the Spectre flaw--if anybody still at Intel even knows the P3 microcode well enough to do it! > > And no, I also don't think CPUs before the Pentium4 can have > microcode updated at runtime. But the P3 is apparently used in > embedded products, perhaps manufacturers can use the microcode to > refresh their bios. Perhaps, but one sees little incentive for them. I think we have to go straight for the CPU ourselves with the Linux kernel. > > If you get microcode for an old Intel CPU, and load it, you should > be able to see in dmesg the before/after versions, and the date. > Alternatively, your motherboard may already be using that version. /proc/cpuinfo says I've got microcode 0xcb on my twin Conroes. I'm not even going to *try* to update the microcode unless and until I can establish it's going to mitigate Spectre. Only one good thing can happen, many bad things. A couple years ago, when I backed up my i7-940 with an i7-870, I checked for microcode updates. The 870 had one/some, the 940 did not. Likewise, even if updates are published, I need to know what they do before I make a move. > > For matching filenames to hardware, I guess you mean the family - > - model - stepping part : I don't know of any way to convert that to > particular CPUs, /proc/cpuinfo gives us that, plus the microcode level. > > If you still have a problem, please ask. I'm not going to *create* a problem until I have some confidence it's worth the risk. I'm certainly not going to take the risk, just to end up with the same microcode level. I want to see something from Intel that details what microcode levels each of those files are at, and given the nature of things, that Spectre is or is not mitigated. > > One further comment: although the debian microcode that I posted > about last week does work as a (large) initrd to cover multiple > machines (in early loading), I have no idea how to generate such a > multi-machine initrd. That is why near the top of the page I wrote: > "Preparing firmware for multiple different machines, as a distro > would do, is outside the scope of this book." > > ĸen I have avoided using initrds, and want to continue to do so. I don't build POD with the idea it will be thrown at arbitrary hardware. Initial kernels are built monolithically to boot on reasonably common hardware of a certain vintage, but after booting the sysadmin is expected to soon build a customized kernel, eliminating a lot of HD drivers, adding NIC, ALSA, AGP/FB/DRI--none of which are *necessary* to boot. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] Intel microcode updates adding confusion?
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 09:48:11AM -0800, Paul Rogers wrote: > This morning I was referred to this site with microcode updates: > https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27431/Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-File > > But it claims to have microcode updates going back to the venerable "P54" > Pentium-90 and "P55" Pentium-233 MMX. I'm confused. We're not told these > i586 CPUs, which don't do speculative execution, are susceptible to SPECTRE. > I don't recall reading microcode *could* be updated on them! I was afraid > microcode for the Pentium-3 family, a few of which I *can* still run, would > be neglected, but I don't know what to make of all this. Making sense of > Intel's file names as relates to particular hardware is also obscure to me. > Not all the microcode is to fix Spectre! My experience is that intel microcode for older processors does not get changed, but they copy it into the latest tarball. When I looked at debian last week, the documentation suggested that old microcode sometimes got removed, probably as a cleanup of the site. I'm not sure if that still happens. And no, I also don't think CPUs before the Pentium4 can have microcode updated at runtime. But the P3 is apparently used in embedded products, perhaps manufacturers can use the microcode to refresh their bios. If you get microcode for an old Intel CPU, and load it, you should be able to see in dmesg the before/after versions, and the date. Alternatively, your motherboard may already be using that version. For matching filenames to hardware, I guess you mean the family - - model - stepping part : I don't know of any way to convert that to particular CPUs, but if you read the current svn version of the BLFS book it should tell you how to translate the values for your current CPU. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/postlfs/firmware.html If you still have a problem, please ask. I _think_ I got the Intel part (including the late and early examples) consistent when I updated it, but it's a very long and complicated page, things might still be unclear to people who have never updated microcode before. One further comment: although the debian microcode that I posted about last week does work as a (large) initrd to cover multiple machines (in early loading), I have no idea how to generate such a multi-machine initrd. That is why near the top of the page I wrote: "Preparing firmware for multiple different machines, as a distro would do, is outside the scope of this book." ĸen -- Truth, in front of her huge walk-in wardrobe, selected black leather boots with stiletto heels for such a barefaced truth. - Unseen Academicals -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] Intel microcode updates adding confusion?
This morning I was referred to this site with microcode updates: https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27431/Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-File But it claims to have microcode updates going back to the venerable "P54" Pentium-90 and "P55" Pentium-233 MMX. I'm confused. We're not told these i586 CPUs, which don't do speculative execution, are susceptible to SPECTRE. I don't recall reading microcode *could* be updated on them! I was afraid microcode for the Pentium-3 family, a few of which I *can* still run, would be neglected, but I don't know what to make of all this. Making sense of Intel's file names as relates to particular hardware is also obscure to me. -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] 回复：Re: GMP and libstdc++.la
On 12/01/2018 09:55, hykw...@sina.com wrote: >> On 12/01/2018 08:32, hykw...@sina.com wrote: >>> When I tried to follow the instructions in the section 6.17 in order to >>> build >>> GMP 6.1.2, I encountered the similar problem, which is describted in this >>> URL >>> ( >>> https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-from-scratch-13/lfs-6-14-gmp-6-1-0-libtool-error-libstdc-ls-is-not-a-valid-libtool-archive-4175586676/ >>> ): >>> >>> libtool: error: '/usr/lib/libstdc++.la' is not a valid libtool archive >>> >>> I checked the length of the file "libstdc++.la" and the size is 0 byte. >>> >>> Thus, I removed it from "/usr/lib" and then I could build the GMP. >>> >>> So, my question is: will the final system work properly if the file >>> "libstdc++.la" is missing during the build process? >>> And do I have to check why the file "libstdc++.la" is empty? >>> >>> P.S.: >>> I ran the following during GMP build process: >>> >>> cp -v configfsf.guess config.guess cp -v configfsf.sub config.sub >>> >>> >> Which version of LFS? If using a recent, but not latest SVN, it may be that >> /tools/lib/libstdc++.la is removed at the end of chapter 5, but the link >> /usr/lib/libstdc++.la -> /tools/lib/libstdc++.la is created in "Creating >> Essential Files". In latest SVN, it is not created anymore. >> Pierre > > My version is: Linux From Scratch - Version 20180106-systemd > If it is not created anymore, I will check my system again. > Thanks. > You should use 20180111. 20180106 was in error... Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[lfs-support] 回复：Re: GMP and libstdc++.la
> On 12/01/2018 08:32, hykw...@sina.com wrote: >> When I tried to follow the instructions in the section 6.17 in order to build >> GMP 6.1.2, I encountered the similar problem, which is describted in this URL >> ( >> https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-from-scratch-13/lfs-6-14-gmp-6-1-0-libtool-error-libstdc-ls-is-not-a-valid-libtool-archive-4175586676/ >> ): >> >> libtool: error: '/usr/lib/libstdc++.la' is not a valid libtool archive >> >> I checked the length of the file "libstdc++.la" and the size is 0 byte. >> >> Thus, I removed it from "/usr/lib" and then I could build the GMP. >> >> So, my question is: will the final system work properly if the file >> "libstdc++.la" is missing during the build process? >> And do I have to check why the file "libstdc++.la" is empty? >> >> P.S.: >> I ran the following during GMP build process: >> >> cp -v configfsf.guess config.guess cp -v configfsf.sub config.sub >> >> >Which version of LFS? If using a recent, but not latest SVN, it may be that >/tools/lib/libstdc++.la is removed at the end of chapter 5, but the link >/usr/lib/libstdc++.la -> /tools/lib/libstdc++.la is created in "Creating >Essential Files". In latest SVN, it is not created anymore. >Pierre My version is: Linux From Scratch - Version 20180106-systemd If it is not created anymore, I will check my system again. Thanks. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Re: [lfs-support] GMP and libstdc++.la
On 12/01/2018 08:32, hykw...@sina.com wrote: > When I tried to follow the instructions in the section 6.17 in order to build > GMP 6.1.2, I encountered the similar problem, which is describted in this URL > ( > https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-from-scratch-13/lfs-6-14-gmp-6-1-0-libtool-error-libstdc-ls-is-not-a-valid-libtool-archive-4175586676/ > ): > > libtool: error: '/usr/lib/libstdc++.la' is not a valid libtool archive > > I checked the length of the file "libstdc++.la" and the size is 0 byte. > > Thus, I removed it from "/usr/lib" and then I could build the GMP. > > So, my question is: will the final system work properly if the file > "libstdc++.la" is missing during the build process? > And do I have to check why the file "libstdc++.la" is empty? > > P.S.: > I ran the following during GMP build process: > > cp -v configfsf.guess config.guess cp -v configfsf.sub config.sub > > Which version of LFS? If using a recent, but not latest SVN, it may be that /tools/lib/libstdc++.la is removed at the end of chapter 5, but the link /usr/lib/libstdc++.la -> /tools/lib/libstdc++.la is created in "Creating Essential Files". In latest SVN, it is not created anymore. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
