Re: BUG: early intel microcode update violating alignment rules

[H. Peter Anvin]

I don't think so.  I wouldn't count on that in the long run.

I'm having some discussions about this integrally at the moment.

On August 11, 2014 11:18:32 AM PDT, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 11, 2014, at 11:51, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> We could put a buffer in the initdata region (we really could use an
>> initbss region!) or in the brk.
>
>That sounds much better than the hideous crap I came up with.  The
>buffer would need to be at least 64KiB in size to be on the safe side. 
>The largest public microcode update ATM is 23KiB.
>
>I am not sure if we might need more than 64KiB: the Intel SDM mentions
>that in real mode the update data must not cross a segment boundary,
>and
>also must not exceed a segment limit.  I am a bit rusty on real mode,
>but doesn't that mean, in practice, that microcode update data size is
>limited in size to 64KiB?

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/