On 2/21/2018 2:13 PM, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:06:11PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 113
>>> +-
>>
>> This is generic so Tom needs to ack whatever we end up doing for the AMD
>> side.
>
> Yes, i
On 2/21/2018 2:13 PM, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:06:11PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 113
>>> +-
>>
>> This is generic so Tom needs to ack whatever we end up doing for the AMD
>> side.
>
> Yes, i
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:13:08PM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> This is ensuring no 2 cpus do ucode update at the same time.
And that is a problem?
We don't do any of that mutual exclusion for early loading. Why isn't it
there a problem?
> That's what we are doing here, but simply returning
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:13:08PM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> This is ensuring no 2 cpus do ucode update at the same time.
And that is a problem?
We don't do any of that mutual exclusion for early loading. Why isn't it
there a problem?
> That's what we are doing here, but simply returning
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:06:11PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 113
> > +-
>
> This is generic so Tom needs to ack whatever we end up doing for the AMD
> side.
Yes, i did ping Tom to check if this is ok with them.
>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:06:11PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 113
> > +-
>
> This is generic so Tom needs to ack whatever we end up doing for the AMD
> side.
Yes, i did ping Tom to check if this is ok with them.
>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:49:44AM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> Microcode updates during OS load always assumed the other hyperthread
> was "quiet", but Linux never really did this. We've recently received
> several issues on this, where things did not go well at scale
> deployments, and the Intel
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:49:44AM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> Microcode updates during OS load always assumed the other hyperthread
> was "quiet", but Linux never really did this. We've recently received
> several issues on this, where things did not go well at scale
> deployments, and the Intel
Microcode updates during OS load always assumed the other hyperthread
was "quiet", but Linux never really did this. We've recently received
several issues on this, where things did not go well at scale
deployments, and the Intel microcode team asked us to make sure the
system is in a quiet state
Microcode updates during OS load always assumed the other hyperthread
was "quiet", but Linux never really did this. We've recently received
several issues on this, where things did not go well at scale
deployments, and the Intel microcode team asked us to make sure the
system is in a quiet state
10 matches
Mail list logo
