在 2018/1/17 上午5:51, Borislav Petkov 写道:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 01:30:19PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> I could get you a list of model numbers that you can check against
>> model_name.
>
> Yeah, we're not doing that again. :)
>
>> But that seems way worse. Especially as the 2.5MB thing is wha
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 01:30:19PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> I could get you a list of model numbers that you can check against
> model_name.
Yeah, we're not doing that again. :)
> But that seems way worse. Especially as the 2.5MB thing is what is
> called out in the erratum.
Oh well.
Thx.
--
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:50:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> ... and there's not a more reliable way to detect those like platform ID
> or so? Because if for anywhere, this is where one *should* use platform
> ID.
>
> Or perhaps some other bit somewhere instead of this cache size thing?
I c
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:11:58PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> I think so. The erratum (see below) says the problem only occurs
> on the large-cache SKUs. So we only need to avoid the update if
> we are on a big cache SKU that is also running old microcode.
... and there's not a more reliable way
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:01:49PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 05:24:27PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > I'll look for someone who can confirm the 2.5MB/core detail.
> >
> > Ok ... re-read the erratum. The 2.5MB/core is clear. The E5+E7 is clear.
> >
> > No mention o
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 05:24:27PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > I'll look for someone who can confirm the 2.5MB/core detail.
>
> Ok ... re-read the erratum. The 2.5MB/core is clear. The E5+E7 is clear.
>
> No mention of the platform ID, but Jia is dropping that part.
>
> Boris ... what specifi
> I'll look for someone who can confirm the 2.5MB/core detail.
Ok ... re-read the erratum. The 2.5MB/core is clear. The E5+E7 is clear.
No mention of the platform ID, but Jia is dropping that part.
Boris ... what specific questions remain?
-Tony
>> I'm not taking this: this looks like a bunch of voodoo magic numbers.
>> Please get someone from Intel to explain first.
>
> Tony, could you clarify this?
Jia,
I'll look for someone who can confirm the 2.5MB/core detail.
-Tony
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:14:44AM +0800, Jia Zhang wrote:
> or driver init style?
>
> @@ -996,5 +999,7 @@ struct microcode_ops * __init init_intel_microcode(void)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> + llc_size_per_core = calc_llc_size_per_core(c);
> +
> return µcode_inte
在 2018/1/16 上午2:46, Borislav Petkov 写道:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 09:11:57PM +0800, Jia Zhang wrote:
>> The commit b94b73733171
>> ("x86/microcode/intel: Extend BDW late-loading with a revision check")
>> reduces the impact of erratum BDF90 for Broadwell process model.
>> Actually, the impact can
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 09:11:57PM +0800, Jia Zhang wrote:
> The commit b94b73733171
> ("x86/microcode/intel: Extend BDW late-loading with a revision check")
> reduces the impact of erratum BDF90 for Broadwell process model.
> Actually, the impact can be reduced further through adding the checks
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
